Oral
Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Financial Ombudsman Service Decisions:  Cost of Implementation

Jim Shannon: Whether he has held discussions with banks on the costs of implementation of Financial Ombudsman Service decisions.

Andrew Griffith: The Financial Ombudsman Service offers a proportionate and informal resolution of disputes that is cost-free for consumers. Where it upholds a complaint against a firm, it can award redress for that concern to that consumer. I work very closely with my officials and with the Financial Ombudsman Service to make sure consumers have the justice they require.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for that that response. This has been an ongoing issue in the House for some time, and I spoke to some of the Minister’s colleagues beforehand. The Chancellor and the Minister will know that the parliamentary ombudsman found that 1 million Equitable Life savers lost money as a direct result of Government decisions. Why, then, are the Government holding themselves to a different standard and ignoring the wishes of the parliamentary ombudsman, having paid victims of the Equitable Life scandal only 22% of the money they lost from their pension funds? I say that with great respect, but I do think we need an answer.

Andrew Griffith: I respect the hon. Member for raising this issue. It has however, been raised many times before in this House, and answered from this Dispatch Box as well.

Cost of Living

Ian Byrne: What fiscal steps he plans to take to help reduce the impact of recent increases in the cost of living on households.

Patricia Gibson: What recent assessment he has made of the potential effects of his policies on inflation on the cost of living.

Richard Thomson: What recent assessment he has made of the potential effects of his policies on inflation on the cost of living.

Jeremy Hunt: We know the pain that households up and down the country are going through as a result of the cost of living pressures at the moment, and have announced one of the largest support packages in Europe, worth around £3,300 per household this year and last.

Ian Byrne: The latest report from Which? highlights that even supermarkets’ own budget brands of food have increased in price by 26.6%. There are security locks on baby formula milk, at the same time as corporations are making vast profits. The Government have signed up to the United Nations’ sustainable development goal of eradicating poverty by 2030. Surely, in the light of those commitments, now is the time for the Chancellor to act. Will he cap essential food prices and tackle the grotesque profiteering in the food industry that is driving many of my constituents in Liverpool, West Derby into poverty?

Jeremy Hunt: I totally respect the hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns of his constituents in the way that he has done. I do not believe that capping prices is the right long-term solution, but we are doing a lot, including payments of £900 per household for people on means-tested benefits, £150 for households with someone disabled living in them and £300 for households with pensioners living in them, precisely because we want to help the people that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I will be meeting the regulators next week to talk further about what needs to be done with respect to supermarkets.

Patricia Gibson: Over the weekend, the former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, spoke about how before the Brexit referendum, the Bank of England had set out that the likely consequences of Brexit were
“a weaker pound, higher inflation and weaker growth”.
Does the Chancellor think it is fair that the UK Government’s decision to ignore the stark warnings from the Bank of England are now being paid for by the households who can least afford it?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that I do not buy this Brexit narrative from the SNP. Food price inflation has been around 20% in Germany, Sweden, Portugal and Poland in recent times, so this is not a UK-specific issue. We are all dealing with the consequences of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the aftermath of the pandemic, and we are all tackling it with one central focus, which is to bring down inflation as our overriding priority.

Richard Thomson: The former US Treasury chief said earlier this month that Brexit was a “historic economic error”, and described the UK Government’s economic policy as having been
“substantially flawed for some years”.
Will the Chancellor finally face up to what the rest of the world can see, and admit that leaving the world’s largest single market has not only had a significant impact on inflation, but a deleterious impact on household finances across the country?

Jeremy Hunt: The issue with that argument is that the UK has actually grown faster than France or Italy since we left the single market, and according to the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, the UK economy is “on the right track”.

Jake Berry: I thank my right hon. Friend for all he has done for people in Rossendale and Darwen to help them through this cost of living crisis, but people are very concerned about what is being described as the mortgage bomb about to go off. Is now the time for him to look at reintroducing the bold Conservative idea of mortgage interest relief at source? If we do not help families now, all the other money that we spent to help them will have been wasted if they lose their home.

Jeremy Hunt: No one in Rossendale and Darwen could have a more doughty champion than my right hon. Friend, and I listen to what he says carefully, but I think he will understand that those schemes that involve injecting large amounts of cash into the economy right now would be inflationary. So much as we sympathise with the difficulties and will do everything we can to help people seeing their mortgage costs go up, we will not do anything that would mean we prolonged inflation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Stewart Hosie: The cost of a two-year fixed mortgage in March 2021 was 2.57%; this week, it reached 6%. The Chancellor and the Economic Secretary have said there are no plans to change the Bank of England inflation target, meaning that the base rate that drives the mortgage rate will continue to rise as inflation stays stubbornly high, and mortgages will go up. In the absence of such a change, what do the Government plan to do to actually tackle the mortgage pain people are suffering?

Jeremy Hunt: First, I would say to the right hon. Member that he is talking about something that is being experienced across the world. In fact, interest rates have risen faster in the United States and Canada than they have here. The answer is that we will look at doing everything we can to help people under pressure, but we will not do things that would prolong the inflationary agony that people are going through. We have to be very careful, because a lot of the schemes that are being proposed would actually make inflation worse, not better.

Stewart Hosie: On the issue of inflation, the Office for Budget Responsibility said in March that inflation was due to peak at 2.9% at the end of this year. By May, the Bank of England had forecast that it would be 5% at the end of this year, so it had almost doubled in the space of two months. Given that headline inflation is still 8.7% and food inflation is 16.5%, will the Chancellor guarantee today that inflation will be halved to 5%, as promised by the Prime Minister in January of this year?

Jeremy Hunt: The IMF, the OBR and the Bank of England all predict that we will hit our target to halve inflation, and I give the right hon. Member this guarantee: we will stick to the plan to do so.

Growth Plan of 23 September 2022 and  Cost of Mortgages

Gerald Jones: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of the growth plan of 23 September 2022 on mortgage rates.

Janet Daby: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of the growth plan of 23 September 2022 on mortgage rates.

Christine Jardine: If he will make an assessment of the implications for his Department’s policies of the cost of mortgage products.

Andrew Griffith: We recognise that this is a concerning time for homeowners and mortgage holders, but we cannot ignore the fact, much as some may wish to, that interest rates have risen across western economies as a result of the covid pandemic and the impact of the war in Ukraine. The Bank of England sets the base rate, which can have an effect on mortgage pricing, and the Bank has been independent since the decision of the then Labour Government in 1997. We remain committed to responsible management to bring inflation under control, which is the only sustainable way to lower interest rates and lower mortgage rates.

Gerald Jones: The former Prime Minister has apologised for the mistakes in her so-called growth plan and the damage it caused. Families across the UK will soon start paying thousands more in mortgage interest payments. Given the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, it appears that there is little or no further support coming. Will the Minister join the former Prime Minister and apologise to the nation for the impact of the Conservative party’s misguided economic experiment?

Andrew Griffith: Much as the Opposition would prefer this not to be the case, it is a fact that this is impacting across western economies. Although market-to-market comparisons are not always easy, in the United States of America the average 30-year mortgage has now increased to above 6%. As I have said, this Government will do what we can sustainably to lower interest rates, and thereby ease the burden on mortgage holders.

Janet Daby: This is the second time I am putting it to the Government that the Conservatives are no longer the party of home ownership, and I do not think it will be the last time either. I say this because the average interest rate on a new two-year fixed mortgage is now above 6%. The Chancellor has already said that they will do everything they can, but what does that actually mean, because the public would like to know?

Andrew Griffith: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Not only are we taking action and taking the tough decisions to sustainably improve the nation’s finances, but we are working with lenders—the Chancellor and I regularly meet the mortgage industry—on the support they can provide to mortgage holders if they do get into financial difficulties. There is a range of measures,  which includes term extensions and switches to interest-only payment holidays. The Financial Conduct Authority guidance is very clear that any repossessions—and they are currently running at a historical low—should be an absolute last resort.

Christine Jardine: As a result of the 6% rate that we have heard about, more than 1 million households on flexible-rate mortgages have already faced increases this year, and 1.8 million more will see their fixed-rate deals come to an end and face increases in this year. It is not just homeowners. The knock-on effect has meant that in my constituency in Edinburgh, we have had the highest rental inflation anywhere in the country at 13.7% in the last financial year, because landlords are facing increases in their mortgages. The Government have said that they are willing to support people, so would they be willing to consider the Liberal Democrat idea of a mortgage protection fund to protect those on the lowest incomes, and support those who are struggling?

Andrew Griffith: I thank the hon. Member for her question, but regrettably the proposal that she and her party put forward would not only delay the point at which we are able to bear down on inflation and deliver the nation’s mortgage holders the lower interest they need but, as I understand, it would do nothing for the plight of private renters.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

Harriett Baldwin: The growth plan in September obviously had an impact on the mortgage market, but is the Economic Secretary to the Treasury aware that by November, the Governor of the Bank of England said, when he gave evidence to our Committee, that the increases in mortgages henceforth were down to the Bank of England’s own increases, because that temporary effect from the growth plan had dissipated? Increases since then have been largely due to the fact that inflation has been worse than the Bank was forecasting. Did the Economic Secretary note that this week I received a letter from the Chair of the Court of the Bank of England, saying that they are going to undertake the request that I sent for them to look at their inflation modelling and at why it has been incorrect?

Andrew Griffith: Not for the first time, the Chair of the Treasury Committee is on the money in her understanding of what is driving the markets, and in her advocacy and championing of the fact that our lending banks need to do a good job not just for mortgage holders, but also for savers. I am happy to meet her to talk about how we can ensure that they do the best job they can.

Richard Fuller: In his earlier reply the Minister talked about mortgages in the United States. He will know that in the United States it is common to fix a mortgage for 15 or 30 years, which gives certainty about monthly repayments and can of course be refinanced if mortgage rates go down over the term of the mortgage. I understand that the UK Treasury looked at the UK mortgage markets and at introducing long-term fixed rates, and found that at that time there was not much potential. Will he consider looking at that again?

Andrew Griffith: As ever, my hon. Friend’s question is apposite when it comes to Treasury matters. There are indeed long-term fixed-rate mortgages on the market, and I have taken advice from officials on that. The constraining factor is consumer demand, and that is not a pattern of behaviour we have seen. Clearly for some mortgage holders such mortgages do offer long-term certainty, and it is certainly my objective for us to see the broadest range of choices for householders and for their own individual patterns in the market.

Jonathan Gullis: Mortgage payers in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are rightly worried at this moment in time, with the impending re-brokering that they are facing. To support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Sir Jake Berry) said earlier, is it time to return to a Conservative principle of introducing a mortgage interest relief at source-type scheme, which allows borrowers tax relief for interest payments on their mortgages?

Andrew Griffith: I always listen enormously carefully to my hon. Friend’s powerful advocacy for Stoke-on-Trent, and his constituents put their trust in this Government. One thing they put their trust in, is that this Government would not come forward with the sort of unfunded spending commitments that we see on the Labour Benches. That would be disastrous for my hon. Friend’s constituents because it would see inflation remain higher for longer.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Pat McFadden: The only thing that grew as a result of what the Government did last September was people’s mortgage payments. Two-year fixed rates are now more than 6%, and payments for householders are up £2,900 over the next year. Have the Government learned the lesson from the previous Prime Minister’s decision—I stress that word; it is nothing to do with international events—to use the country as a giant economic experiment that hurt homeowners, pushed up interest rates and shook international confidence in the United Kingdom? If they have, will the Minister now apologise to the householders who are paying the price for that mistake?

Andrew Griffith: As ever, I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s rhetoric. I ask him whether he has learned the lesson from what we saw with the last Labour Government, who spent their way through the nation’s finances and whose most lasting contribution to the economy was a note that we inherited from the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury saying there was no money left.

Pat McFadden: Back to 2023. This is a real crisis, affecting real people as a result of the real decisions of the Minister’s Government. Figures out today show that the average UK tenant is spending more than 28% of their income on rent, and rents have gone up by more than 10% in the past year. Rents are being forced up because the landlords who people rent from are seeing their mortgages go up, too, and sometimes even faster than mortgages in general. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister were supposed to be the team that would come in and sort everything out. Can the Minister tell us what went wrong?

Andrew Griffith: What went right is the fact that we on the Government Benches not only always focus on the stability of the nation’s finances to get inflation and interest rates falling further and faster than the Opposition would, but even within that envelope, we found £3,300 on average to support households over last winter and the upcoming winter. That will have a significant impact on the difficulties that mortgage holders and renters are facing because of the higher interest rates that are a feature across the western world.

Financial Sanctions Regime

Rachel Hopkins: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the financial sanctionsregime.

John Glen: The Government undertake extensive assessment of the effectiveness of the sanction regimes, which are eroding Russia’s financial base. We have sanctioned 28 Russian banks, covering 80% of Russia’s banking sector, and frozen more than £18 billion of Russian assets, and we have implemented unprecedented trade sanctions in addition.

Rachel Hopkins: Constituents in Luton South have raised concerns about the financial sanctions regime with me. Can the Government confirm whether it is still the case that Russian account holders in the UK can hold £50,000 or more in their accounts? What is to prevent individuals of concern simply parcelling up assets through proxies into a large network of accounts below the permitted level?

John Glen: The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation works closely with our allies across the G7 to ensure that we have co-ordinated action among our international partners on this unprecedented package of sanctions. We have frozen the assets of 1,600 individuals and entities. We have implemented 35 different sanction regimes across government. I would be happy to take away the specific question that she has asked, because it is technical, and respond.

David Mundell: A multimillion-pound start-up project that could be transformational in my constituency is now at risk because the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation is yet to process an asset freeze licence application in respect of just 0.002% of the company’s capital, which was submitted in April. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that such applications are dealt with swiftly? If I provide him with details of the company, will he ensure that the application’s progress is expedited?

John Glen: I am happy to take up my right hon. Friend’s case. We have expanded the OFSI resources. We have a monthly monitoring and efficiency dashboard. I accept how frustrating it can be for constituents’ businesses when such situations arise, and I am happy to take the matter away and get back to him swiftly.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

James Murray: As the war in Ukraine continues, we must not let up for a second on efforts to tighten the net on the accomplices and beneficiaries of Putin’s regime. We welcome the direction of the measures announced yesterday. Can the Minister confirm whether those measures will close all the loopholes and specifically the ownership thresholds, which Russian oligarchs and their enablers have been able to exploit to evade the bite of sanctions?

John Glen: The Government will be relentless in their pursuit of illicit assets. As I said, we have sanctioned 24 banks with global assets of over £940 billion and 120 elites with a combined worth of £140 billion. Working closely with our allies, we have incrementally and sequentially tightened that net and immobilised more than 60% of Putin’s war chest of foreign reserves worth £275 billion. We continue to work closely with our allies to intensify those measures as opportunities arise.

Robert Syms: I have one or two constituents in Poole who lost their jobs because they were in companies owned by Russians who were sanctioned, and they have found it difficult to have an orderly wind-up because banks run a mile from loaning those businesses a reasonable amount of money to sort them out. I know of one situation where people have not been able to get P60s as the business cannot get money from any of the banks—they do not want to be involved in anything to do with sanctions—so it cannot pay the accountants who would produce them. May I have a word with the Minister about that? In some cases, we are going over the top, and it is affecting our constituents.

John Glen: Those points demonstrate how serious and extensive the Government’s actions are, but I recognise that sometimes unfortunate situations arise and I am happy to look at that case and take it back to the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation.

John Cryer: To pursue the issue of proxies raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), am I right in thinking that the Minister said a few minutes ago that he was prepared to examine the possibility of taking action against proxies and those persons of interest who use proxies?

John Glen: What I would say is that the Government are committed to an ever-tighter grip on illicit finance and those individuals close to Putin who make a material contribution to his regime. Obviously, I will not commit on the Floor of the House to individual extensions to what we have already done, but I have set out the range of sanctions regimes that exist across multiple Departments of Government and I am happy to receive representations on whatever case the hon. Member wishes to bring to me.

Consumers of Financial Services: Compensation

Bob Blackman: What steps he is taking to support consumers of financial services who have not received compensation in cases where action by a third party has led to financial loss.

Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend is a strong champion of consumers who have suffered financial loss, particularly through his chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on personal banking and fairer financial services. He understands that the UK does not operate a zero-loss regime where consumers of financial services are automatically compensated, but it is important that regulators make very clear where the scope of protection lies and who is eligible for compensation.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is clearly important that where the ombudsman recommends that compensation be paid, banks pay it. Equally, the Government should pay compensation, such as when the parliamentary ombudsman found against them on Equitable Life policyholders, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I understand that the budget to pay compensation to those policyholders has been underspent by some £300 million, so rather than return the money to the Treasury, will my hon. Friend use it to compensate the Equitable Life policyholders who have suffered in the long term?

Andrew Griffith: We set out the terms of that settlement in 2010 and there is nothing to update the House on today.

Nick Smith: For over five years, I have campaigned on behalf of steelworkers who were part of the British Steel pension scheme. Many were ripped off by sharks posing as financial advisers. While a redress scheme is now in place, legal advisers for steelworkers report claim processing delays of six months at the Financial Conduct Authority, 12 months at the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and two years at the Financial Ombudsman Service, which suggests that all is not right. Delays to cases can have a big impact on possible payouts, so will the Minister please look into the performance of those organisations? Steelworkers and other financial consumers deserve much better than this.

Andrew Griffith: Yes, I will. I have had conversations with the hon. Member about that, and I will take up the case of any unwarranted delays.

Technology Sector

Alexander Stafford: What fiscal steps he is taking to support the technology sector.

Laura Farris: What fiscal steps he is taking to support the technology sector.

Jeremy Hunt: I have set out our national ambition to be the world’s next silicon valley. We are making good progress; last year we were ranked the world’s third largest technology market after the United States and China.

Alexander Stafford: Ultimate Battery in Thurcroft in Rother Valley is developing groundbreaking battery technologies and is on track to create 500 new jobs by 2025. What help can the Department give me and my  constituents to help burgeoning businesses such as Ultimate Battery, to make Rother Valley and other places across the north technology hubs?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for this really important sector in Rother Valley. We have a number of schemes, including £541 million of funding available in the Faraday battery challenge. We also have the £1 billion automotive transformation fund. As a result of the efforts that he and many others have made, we now get 40% of our electricity from renewable sources—the second highest in Europe—and much more progress is to come.

Laura Farris: I recently convened a roundtable in my constituency with the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and a number of science and tech businesses. Their No. 1 question was what fiscal support was available for their sector. I am aware that there are numerous schemes, grants and tax relief, but it was notable that they were not well understood by the businesses, and I could not find them published anywhere on the new Department’s website. Could my right hon. Friend put together and publish a package of all the support available to investors and innovators, and how it can be applied for, to maximise the potential of this vital new frontier in west Berkshire and beyond?

Jeremy Hunt: That is a fair point. I thank my hon. Friend for the fact that Newbury is a hotbed of technology businesses, with Roc Technologies, Stryker, Edwards Lifesciences and a range of other businesses that she gives a lot of support to. I will write to her listing all those things and I will make sure that it is available on the website of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Tim Farron: The tech sector in rural Cumbria depends on reliable broadband. Communities in Warcop, Sandford, Coupland Beck, Blea Tarn and Ormside in Westmorland have signed up to the community interest company and volunteer group B4RN to provide a gigabit connection for just £33 a month, but the communities have been suddenly designated a low priority area, which means that their vouchers have been removed, putting the whole project at risk. Will the Chancellor commit to supporting those communities, residents and businesses to ensure that they get the vouchers that they were initially promised?

Jeremy Hunt: I will happily look into what has happened. We strongly support all rural areas having access to gigabyte broadband, as an important part of our policy. We have made a lot of progress on that. I will look into detail of what is happening in the hon. Gentleman’s area and get back to him.

Hospitality Businesses

Ben Lake: What fiscal steps he is taking to support hospitality businesses.

Victoria Atkins: Hospitality businesses play an important role in local communities and the UK economy. They will benefit from business rates support worth £13.6 billion  over the next five years, which includes increased generosity from the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme from 50% to 75% in 2023-24. There is also our Brexit pub guarantee, which means that the duty on a draught pint in a pub will always be lower than its equivalent in the supermarket.

Ben Lake: The Minister will be aware of long-standing calls from the sector to reduce VAT to bring it into line with European equivalents. Will the Treasury undertake an assessment of the economic benefits of doing so? Will it consider that as part of a package, alongside increasing the threshold for VAT registration from £85,000 to £100,000 to support smaller businesses?

Victoria Atkins: The hon. Gentleman poses many questions for me, some of which are very complicated. VAT relief for the hospitality sector was important in the aftermath of the pandemic, but it cost us a great deal of money and we have had to raise it back up to 20%. We keep the other VAT matters under review, and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss the complexities behind them.

Stephen Crabb: A great many of the new job opportunities and career paths being created in Pembrokeshire are in the tourism and hospitality sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that the very last thing that business people who are creating those growth opportunities need right now is a tourism tax of the kind being brought forward by the Welsh Labour Government in Cardiff, which will hit businesses with new burdens and raise the cost of going on holiday in Wales?

Victoria Atkins: The sun always shines in my right hon. Friend’s corner of Pembrokeshire when he speaks up for it. He is quite right to identify how the Conservatives in Government are trying to help businesses through our business rates relief in England, through our energy support scheme over recent months and, of course, through the Brexit pub guarantee. Welsh Labour, on the other hand, wants to call last orders and have higher taxes for the businesses he is so keen to support.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Abena Oppong-Asare: The 2019 Conservative manifesto, some three Prime Ministers and four Chancellors ago, promised a fundamental reform of business rates. This is another broken Tory promise. Will the Minister admit that only a Labour Government will end the chaos, scrap business rates and replace them with a fairer system, so that our amazing hospitality sector can thrive and grow faster?

Victoria Atkins: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Lady, but I must point out to her gently that we have, in fact, conducted that review. In the autumn statement, we were able to announce a £13.6 billion package of help over the next five years, including a multiplier freeze for all ratepayers, large and small; a transitional relief cap funded by the Exchequer; retail, hospitality and leisure relief; and a small business support scheme, which will help to cap bill increases at £600 per year for any business losing eligibility for some or all  small business rate relief or rural rate relief at the 2023 revaluation. We have done that review and are supporting businesses that need help.

Cost of Living: Energy Prices

Alan Brown: What recent assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential effects of energy prices on the cost of living.

David Duguid: What fiscal steps he is taking to support households with their energy bills.

Gareth Davies: Advanced economies around the world share the challenge of high inflation from the energy shock, and the UK has been affected by those global factors. The Government have taken significant action to help households with rising energy prices and the cost of living by providing a significant support package totalling £94 billion. That includes supporting households with energy bills by extending the energy price guarantee and removing the premium paid by 4 million households using prepayment meters. Overall, the Government have paid about half of a typical household bill since October 2022.

Alan Brown: Many people in the highlands and islands of Scotland will have had their taxes used to help pay for the construction of the gas grid, despite the fact that they are off the gas grid themselves and do not get the benefits of being connected to it. Their area supplies the oil and gas, and now the cheap renewable energy, that is facilitating lower energy bills across Great Britain, yet they are more likely to be fuel poor. To rub salt in the wounds, many pay a surcharge on their electricity bills. When will the UK Government address those inequities?

Gareth Davies: I would simply point out that across the United Kingdom we have provided extensive support, as I said in my answer to the substantive question. I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with details on his specific point.

David Duguid: When the energy profits levy was introduced to help the Government’s support of household energy bills, I welcomed the investment tax allowance that was introduced along with it on new oil and gas for energy security. In recent weeks, I also welcomed the Exchequer Secretary’s announcement in Aberdeen of a price floor in the form of an energy security investment mechanism, at which the EPL will be removed. The devil, of course, will be in the detail. I welcome the Treasury’s ongoing engagement and dialogue with the oil and gas industry, but will the Minister commit to a regular, perhaps quarterly, fiscal forum with the industry, as used to happen prior to covid? Does he agree that Labour’s plans to ban all new oil and gas is based on ideology and not a pragmatic approach to this country’s energy security and net zero?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought to put in for an Adjournment debate. It would be easier for all of us.

Gareth Davies: I can think of few better advocates for the oil and gas industry than my hon. Friend. I was very pleased to meet industry leaders and the chair of the oil and gas forum in Aberdeen recently. We had a very good discussion and I am grateful to the industry for its ongoing engagement with Ministers and officials. I can assure him that the Government are very committed to engaging with the oil and gas sector, as we have been doing for a long time.

Leaving the EU: Economic Impact

Patrick Grady: What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of withdrawal from the EU on the economy.

Victoria Atkins: As per my previous response to the same question by the hon. Gentleman in the last Treasury oral questions, I note that the UK has grown at a similar rate to comparable European economies since 2016, and that it still remains challenging to separate out the effects of Brexit and wider global trends on the UK economy. We remain absolutely committed to seizing the opportunities we now have, free from the EU.

Patrick Grady: That is very convenient. Only the UK has to deal with Brexit. Everyone has had to deal with covid and everyone has had to deal with Ukraine, but only the UK has had to deal with Brexit. That is why, according to the London School of Economics, customers have collectively paid nearly £7 billion extra in their food bills as a direct result of all the checks and frustrations that have come with Brexit. Is the Minister honestly saying that it was a good idea, and that it has not hurt the UK economy?

Victoria Atkins: Let me again gently remind the hon. Gentleman to look at what is happening in the rest of the EU. For example, the eurozone is suffering from the effects of mild recession. All this is due to the global headwinds that we are all facing. However, I know that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted by the recent growth upgrades from the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England and the OECD. We do face challenges, and of course we have to work with our global counterparts to try to deal with those global headwinds, but we are focusing very much on the Prime Minister’s priority of halving inflation, because that is what will make a real difference to our constituents.

John Baron: Does the Minister agree that, despite “Project Fear” forecasts, we have record employment, very low unemployment, good inward investment and trade deals in abundance? Perhaps the Scottish National party should focus on its poor record on the economy and, indeed, on financial transparency, and get over the fact that we have left the EU.

Victoria Atkins: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent honour, which is extremely well deserved? He has made his point very succinctly. We have an exciting future ahead of us—we are already signing trade deals with non-EU countries, and we have a fantastic deal with the EU—and it is now up to us to make a real success of it.

People on Lower Incomes: Financial Support

Peter Aldous: What steps he is taking to provide financial support to people on lower incomes.

Victoria Atkins: The Government recognise the challenges facing households as a result of the elevated cost of living, and we took further action in this year’s spring Budget to provide targeted support to protect the most vulnerable. That included the new cost of living payments this year, help with the cost of essentials through a further extension of the household support fund in England, and the uprating of benefits in line with inflation in April this year.

Peter Aldous: One of the best ways of supporting those on lower incomes is to remove the barriers that prevent them from acquiring the new skills that are necessary for better-paid jobs. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Treasury is working closely with the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill gets rid of those obstacles, and can she provide an update on the progress of the Barber review?

Victoria Atkins: I know that you like Ministers to answer briefly, Mr Speaker, so, if I may, I will answer my hon. Friend’s first question now and respond in writing to his question about the Barber review.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made employment one of the four Es in his drive for growth in the spring Budget, and we are working closely with the Department for Education to invest in exactly the way that my hon. Friend describes. That includes investment in free courses for jobs, which enable people to study high-value level 3 subjects and gain free qualifications, and employer-led skills bootcamps in high-growth areas—a phrase that I never thought I would find myself uttering—which, apparently, involve sectors such as digital, and are available to those who are either unemployed or in work and wanting to retrain.

Rupa Huq: Food banks, playgroups and warm spaces are among the services provided by mosques, temples, synagogues and churches for all our constituents to help them cope with the cost of living crisis, but many of the buildings are creaking and falling apart. Will Ministers consider extending Gordon Brown’s policy of VAT relief on building works for listed places of worship to all such places, to recognise their role in providing social good and to alleviate the pressure on multiple systems?

Victoria Atkins: I thank the hon. Lady for raising an important point. There has been an incredible outpouring of support across communities—not just in religious communities, but at village and town halls around the United Kingdom—in an effort to help people with the cost of living pressures that we face in the winter. The picture is quite complicated, but perhaps I can write to the hon. Lady with a fuller response to her question, because I want to do it justice and I know I will get in trouble with you, Mr Speaker, if I do so now.

Inflation

Richard Burgon: What recent steps he has taken to reduce inflation.

John Glen: The Government are doing three things to reduce inflation. First, we remain steadfast in our support for the independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England as it takes action to return inflation to its 2% target. Secondly, we are making difficult but responsible decisions on tax and spending so that we do not add fuel to the fire. Thirdly, we are tackling high energy prices by holding down energy bills for households and businesses, alongside investing in long-term energy security.

Richard Burgon: The rich and powerful have repeatedly sought to blame workers for high inflation, even though workers’ real wages have been falling as inflation soars. Many leading economists now say that profiteering by certain corporations, not wages, is driving price rises. The French Government have taken action to limit food prices, and Spain has introduced rent controls. When will this Government start targeting the profiteering that is helping to drive inflation?

John Glen: We continue to have constructive dialogue with industry and different sectors. I met supermarket representatives a few weeks ago, and the Chancellor and others in the Treasury will continue to have these conversations. I think most people recognise that we face common global challenges and that different economies will respond in different ways.

Topical Questions

John Baron: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: We will not hesitate in our resolve to support the Bank of England as it seeks to strangle inflation in the economy, and the best policy is to stick to our plan to halve inflation. I also want to make sure that we do everything possible to help families paying higher mortgage rates in ways that do not themselves feed inflation, so later this week I will be meeting the principal mortgage lenders to ask what help they can give to people who are struggling to pay more expensive mortgages and what flexibilities might be possible for families in arrears.

John Baron: Despite being the gateway to most financial services in the City, I suggest that the London stock exchange is ailing, with CRH and Arm being the latest canaries in the coalmine. While welcoming the Edinburgh reforms, what further consideration has the Chancellor given to my suggestion that tax incentives be introduced to encourage our British pension funds—the big beasts—to invest more in UK equities, given that, since the financial crisis of 2008-09, they have reduced their exposure to equities by 90%, unlike in most other developed economies?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend always speaks extremely wisely on financial matters, and he is absolutely on the money when he talks about the opportunity that would present itself by unlocking £3 trillion of pension fund  assets, many of which would get a better return for pensioners if they were invested more in our high-growth businesses, as well as that being a good outcome for the London stock market. All I will say is: watch this space.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Chancellor.

Rachel Reeves: While the Government squabble over parties and peerages, mortgage products are being withdrawn and replaced by mortgages with much higher interest rates. This is a consequence of last year’s Conservative mini-Budget and 13 years of economic failure, with inflation higher here than in similar countries. Average mortgage payments will be going up by a crippling £2,900 this year, so where does the Chancellor think families will get the money to pay the Tory mortgage penalty?

Jeremy Hunt: At the autumn statement, we announced £94 billion of support to help families going through very difficult times. That is more support than was ever proposed by Labour. The answer to these pressures is not borrowing an extra £28 billion a year, as people like Paul Johnson are saying that more borrowing means higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher mortgage rates.

Rachel Reeves: Is the Chancellor for real? These are the real-life consequences of what is happening under the Conservative Government today, so do not try to pass the buck.
Let me bring this home. In Selby and Ainsty, 12,000 households will be paying, on average, £2,700 more on their mortgage. In Uxbridge and South Ruislip, 10,000 households will be paying, on average, £5,200 more. Each and every family know who is responsible for trashing the economy: the Conservative party. Will the Chancellor apologise for the harm that his Government have caused with the Tory mortgage penalty?

Jeremy Hunt: I am proud of our economic record, which has seen our economy grow faster than those of France and Japan since 2010, and at the same rate as Germany. Those mortgage holders in Selby, Uxbridge or Mid Bedfordshire will be paying even more for their mortgages if a Labour Government borrow £100 billion more in the next Parliament, and we will not let that happen.

Craig Tracey: As the Minister knows, having a strong insurance and financial services sector is vital to the growth of our economy, which is one of the Prime Minister’s pledges. So will the Minister confirm that he is doing everything in his power to make that happen, particularly with a view to our international competitiveness in those key sectors?

Andrew Griffith: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. He will know from his significant contribution to the Financial Services and Markets Bill as it has gone through this House that it introduces a new duty on our financial regulators to promote the growth and international competitiveness of the United Kingdom. Thanks to him, the Bill also contains specific reporting measures as to how they are going to achieve that important objective.

Ian Byrne: I recently met the Minister for Schools to present him with a costed proposal for piloting universal free school meals in Liverpool. He said that he was not ideologically opposed to that but all roads lead to the Treasury, so here we are. Will the Chancellor work with me and that Minister to enable this pilot, which would transform the education, health and wellbeing of thousands of children across my great city?

Jeremy Hunt: I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to talk to him about that initiative. We are making great progress in our schools—we have risen to fourth in the global league table for reading—but we can always do more.

David Evennett: I welcome my right hon .Friend’s commitment to making inflation and the cost of living his top priority, as it is also a top priority of my constituents. Does he agree that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is entirely correct to say that Labour’s plans for £28 billion of borrowing in its green prosperity plan would simply lead to higher rates of interest and higher inflation?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the answer to inflation is to tackle it, not to make it worse.

Ian Lavery: Real-terms wages are lower now than they were in 2008, which is a disgrace. The north-east has been hit harder than other regions, worst of all on child poverty. The rates of child poverty have shot up, with the result that we have 67% of children in working families living in poverty. Is the Chancellor’s deliberate, brutal policy of wage suppression working? If so, who for?

Jeremy Hunt: We understand the pressures that families are going through up and down the country, but we have responded with generous support this year and last of more than £3,000 for the average household. Not only that, but since 2010 the number of children in absolute poverty has fallen by 400,000.

Theresa Villiers: Paying around half the cost of people’s energy bills and freezing fuel duty has been crucial in helping people with the cost of living, but is there further action the Government can take to get inflation down? Are we on track to halve it by the end of the year?

John Glen: Controlling public spending and ensuring that the interventions we are making prioritise growth enablement is a relentless activity. The household support fund of £2.5 billion continues to be an additional source of support for households, but there are no quick fixes; there is a relentless pursuit of the goals that we have set out at the start of this year.

Chris Elmore: How on earth can the Chancellor begin to understand the worries of ordinary homeowners when it would seem that in 2018 it slipped his mind to declare that he had spent £3.5 million buying seven luxury flats in Southampton as an investment opportunity? Is the  reality not that he and the Treasury Front-Bench team are completely out of touch with what homeowners are facing?

Jeremy Hunt: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should get his facts right before making that kind of suggestion. He got them wrong.

Anna Firth: In-person banking facilities are vital to everyone in Southend West, yet in recent years we have lost all but one of our bank branches. A new community-based post office banking hub model is being rolled out, so will the Minister support my efforts to get one of those into Leigh-on-Sea?

Andrew Griffith: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will be aware of what is in our Financial Services and Markets Bill, and I can update the House by saying that the Government have tabled an amendment to protect free access to cash withdrawal and deposit facilities. I would be happy to meet her to discuss her constituency’s needs.

Alistair Carmichael: I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Recent Government pronouncements relating to food security have been welcome, but if they are to be meaningful then farmers and crofters need certainty about the future of Government support and, critically, the amount of money that will be available to fund that. Will the Chancellor tell us when he will engage with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations about the size of the budget that will be available? In the meantime, will he meet with me and the National Farmers Union Scotland?

John Glen: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the farming support payment is ported to Scotland and operates on a different basis because it is devolved. We have committed to the sum of £2.4 billion for the duration of this Parliament and there are a number of schemes where the uptake is now increasing. I will continue to engage with my colleagues at DEFRA as those schemes develop further.

Mary Robinson: The last bank in the entire constituency of Cheadle is about to close, so I was delighted when, following my interventions and direct conversations with LINK and appeals from the community, Bramhall was chosen to be LINK’s 100th banking hub recommendation. It will be invaluable for residents, but they will be left without banking services until it is open. Will the Minister look into bridging options in the interim, between the bank closing and the hub opening, or consider imposing requirements on banks to remain open until a hub is implemented?

Andrew Griffith: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about the range of options. I am delighted about the solution proposed for Bramhall, in her constituency. Last week, I visited the new banking hub in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). I hope the whole House will wish the operator, Vip Varsani, well in that new endeavour.

Chris Bryant: For the first time in my 20 years as an MP we have a real housing crisis in the Rhondda. Two thirds of people own their own homes, but lots of people who have relied on the commercial rented sector are finding that landlords are selling their properties because of decisions made about taxation and, because there is a cap on housing benefit, they do not want to continue in that market. Dozens of people are being evicted week in, week out. Will the Government look closely at what is happening to protect people in constituencies such as mine, so that they can keep their own homes?

John Glen: I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss what is happening in his constituency. Obviously, there have been a series of changes since the section 24 change in the Finance Act 2015 and there are particular pressures in the housing economy at the moment, but I am happy to meet him to discuss that further.

Matthew Hancock: I welcome the work that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have done to promote work on artificial intelligence done here, and in developing an ecosystem for that. It is clear that the UK has an opportunity to lead on this, especially on regulation, if we get it right, but only if we seize that opportunity now. What is the Chancellor doing to make that happen?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend is right to say this is a big opportunity. We are home to a third of Europe’s AI start-ups, but we are very aware of the risks of AI. The Government are hosting a global AI summit, with the support of President Biden, this autumn, to ensure we get that regulation absolutely right.

Sammy Wilson: Quite rightly, this Question Time has been dominated by questions about inflation and the cost of living. One policy that has not been mentioned is the Government’s net zero policy and the inflationary costs included in it, from green levies of £12 billion to the cost of strengthening the infrastructure and the favourable treatment given to renewable energy firms. While the Minister may condemn the Labour party for its £29 billion green policy spending plan, what is the cost of the Government’s net zero policies to consumers? Are they not picking their pockets dry?

Gareth Davies: We have a world-leading track record on net zero, but we must balance that correctly with who bears the cost. Critical to the nature of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is mobilising more private capital, and we are making great strides on that front.

Peter Gibson: Can my hon. Friend update the House as to when we will see spades in the ground on the Brunswick site in Darlington for the Darlington economic campus?

Gareth Davies: My hon. Friend is a great champion of Darlington, and Darlington’s economic campus is a critical part of levelling up. The Government Property Agency has been working hard to finalise commercial negotiations. I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend when I have a more substantive update.

Emma Hardy: Ever-increasing food prices mean that some families are having to cut down on the amount they eat. Will the Minister support Labour’s plan to negotiate a new veterinary agreement for agriculture products to reduce the cost for food producers and bring down those crippling food prices?

Jeremy Hunt: We will always look at Labour policies, but they are normally not right.

Alun Cairns: Clear policy direction and a strong regulatory framework have led to the UK being the world’s leading centre in financial technology. Does my hon. Friend agree that the crypto industry offers the same opportunity for the UK to exploit?

Andrew Griffith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was pleased to join him in a Westminster Hall debate about the regulation of the cryptoassets sector. I commend the work done in this House by the crypto and digital assets all-party parliamentary group. He might join me in welcoming the decision by Andreessen Horowitz, one of the world’s largest technology companies, to locate its only international office outside of San Francisco here in the UK and to run its 2024 cryptoassets school here.

Clive Efford: In 2016, Exercise Cygnus tested the country’s preparedness for a pandemic. Was the Government’s response at that time adequate, and what can the Chancellor do in his current role to make sure that we are properly prepared in the future?

Jeremy Hunt: I am looking forward to answering questions about that tomorrow afternoon at the covid inquiry. We did what was recommended following Exercise Cygnus. Certainly, Ministers did what they were advised to do, but the operation was focused on pandemic flu. The question that we must ask ourselves is why we did not have a broader focus on the different types of pandemic that could have happened, such as covid.

Daisy Cooper: The Government’s business rates review last autumn was anything but fundamental, because it did not even look at the calculations for fair and maintainable trade, which are hammering the viability of pubs in St Albans. If the Chancellor has in fact abandoned his commitment for a fundamental review of business rates, which he himself called for last summer, will he at least look at the calculations for fair and maintainable trade before any more of our valuable pubs have to close?

Victoria Atkins: We conducted a review and put in place the £13.6 billion package of support to help businesses on our high streets. If the hon. Lady is able to look at, for example, the multiplier freeze, she will see that that has had a significant impact on those rates, as has the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief, which will help raise the rate of relief from 50% to 75%. We have targeted this very carefully at exactly the businesses that she mentions.

Patrick Grady: The Chancellor was shaking his head during my question earlier on, so will he say whether he accepts the findings from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics that shows that Brexit is responsible for a third of UK price inflation since 2019? Regulatory sanitary checks and other border checks added almost £7 billion to total domestic grocery bills over the period from December 2019 to March 2023. Does he accept that?

Jeremy Hunt: No.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Jim Shannon.

Jim Shannon: I do not have a question.

Lindsay Hoyle: Right, let us move on.

Ugandan School Attack

Jim Shannon: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to make a statement about the attack on the Lhubiriha Secondary School in Uganda on 16 June.

Andrew Mitchell: At the outset, I thank my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for raising this important matter and for his courtesy in taking the trouble to inform my office.
On Thursday 16 June, there was an horrific and cowardly attack on Lhubiriha secondary school in Mpondwe in western Uganda, which borders the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Government of Uganda have confirmed that 42 people were killed, of whom 37 were students from the school. Six people were injured. There are also reports that a further five to seven people, which may include children from the school, were abducted. The Ugandan authorities believe that the perpetrators are from the Islamic State-affiliated armed group the Allied Democratic Forces, or ADF, which operates in the DRC. The Ugandan military is pursuing the attackers. Those responsible for the attack must be brought to justice.
I issued a tweet on 17 June expressing my horror at the attack, which took the lives of so many innocent schoolchildren. My condolences go out to all the victims and to their families. The British Government strongly condemn this attack. We have confirmed that no British nationals were caught up in the attack. In response to the attack, the Foreign Office updated its travel advice for Uganda on 17 June with a factual update. The British high commissioner in Kampala issued a tweet sending her condolences to all those affected and the British high commission in Kampala remains in close touch with the Ugandan authorities.

Jim Shannon: First of all, I thank the Minister very much for his response. He encapsulates our horror and our concerns. I also thank him for his obvious interest, which we know he has anyway, but which he has proven today. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest sorrow and sympathies for the victims of Friday’s abhorrent attack.
I want to put on record the full magnitude of what occurred. On Friday 42 people, including 37 students, were killed when militants from the ADF, affiliated with IS Central Africa Province, attacked the Lhubiriha secondary school. Some victims were murdered with machetes, while others were killed in their dormitories when terrorists threw bombs and set the building alight after students had barricaded the doors to try to protect themselves. Six additional students were kidnapped to carry loot stolen from the school and it is estimated that some of those may be some young girls and ladies.
The effect of this act of terror is clear: many of the town’s residents have fled since the attack, and yesterday schools across the region were empty, as teachers and students feared turning up. While IS Central Africa Province has yet to claim the attack, that is not unusual, and the attack carries all the hallmarks of ISCAP. Moreover, it is part of a trend of escalating attacks by  the group, targeting Christian villages in the DRC since March, resulting in some 400 deaths. This attack in Uganda spells an alarming development.
The attack is part of a wider trend of violence against Christian and religious minority communities stretching across central Africa, including attacks from Daesh, Boko Haram and Fulani militants in Nigeria and intentional targeting of places of worship by al-Shabaab in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia.
I want to ask the Minister four questions. First, what steps can the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office take to help recover those who were kidnapped? Secondly, what scope is there in the current UK aid budget to provide emergency relief to displaced communities and help to create a safe environment for schools to reopen? Thirdly, when was the latest joint analysis of conflict and stability assessment carried out for the region by the FCDO, and does it reflect the current threat from IS Central Africa Province to Christians and minority communities? Fourthly, what can we do to prevent future attacks?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman sets out the position extremely well. He asks me a number of questions. First, in respect of the aid budget, Britain has a significant partnership with Uganda, which last year was in the order of £30 million. That is spent principally on humanitarian and reproductive health-related issues, but we always keep the humanitarian situation under review and we will continue to do so in this specific case. He asks me about the latest JACS report; it is not recent, but I can tell him that before these horrific events we were looking at commissioning another one and we will pursue that. In respect of what more Britain can do, we are in very close touch with the Ugandan authorities and will do everything we can to help them.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Chair of the Select Committee.

Alicia Kearns: I congratulate my very good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the urgent question. My condolences go to all those parents who are suffering unimaginable horror and fear. The abduction of children is cowardly in the extreme, and I am sure that the Minister is doing all he can to exert pressure to bring those six children home to their families.
The Foreign Affairs Committee is gravely concerned about the current situation. We have launched an inquiry into counter-terrorism so that we can look at the position in countries such as Uganda. We are aware of links between the Allied Democratic Forces and Daesh. Will the Minister please explain what we are doing to discourage any engagement with the Wagner Group? Increasingly, too many African countries are turning to the Wagner Group in a misplaced effort to counter the rise of organisations such as Daesh. Will the Minister also explain what we are doing to tackle border insecurity between Congo and Uganda? The situation is grave.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for what she has said. On her third point, I make it clear that we work closely together on counter-terrorism and regional security, which is a shared priority.
On my hon. Friend’s first point, she is right: this was a horrendous attack on young people and students. A fire bomb was thrown into the male student dormitory, and six and possibly as many as 12 mostly female students appear to have been abducted. Two others, who were taken to a nearby health centre, died owing to a lack of blood supplies. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise the cohort that has suffered so much.
On the disorder at the border, we give strong support to the Luanda and the Nairobi peace processes, which are designed to try to do something about the disorder in the eastern DRC, of which I know my hon. Friend is well aware.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Lyn Brown: I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the urgent question.
Forty-two people are dead, including 37 children, and students remain in terrible danger after being abducted. I struggle to understand the mentality of anyone who deliberately seeks to murder children. The Opposition, and I know the whole House, stand in solidarity with the people of Uganda in their grief.
Last month, the shadow Foreign Secretary and I discussed these issues with His Excellency the Ugandan Minister of Foreign Affairs. Insecurity in the region is a serious threat to many lives. It is also a threat to sustainable development, and to UK interests. Sadly, it lacks the international attention that it deserves.
The ADF is responsible for frequent massacres and brutality in DRC. It seems most likely that it is responsible for this atrocity too. The security situation could grow still more complex as elections in DRC approach this December. May I press the Minister on what plans the Government have to update our sanctions on the ADF? Is he confident that he has the right resources to map illicit financial flows? Do we understand where we have leverage over those who support the ADF and other armed groups in the area?
How are we engaging with the African Union, the East African Community and the Southern African Development Community to support consensus against insecurity among regional states? The ADF and hundreds of other armed groups that terrorise the region must be held to account. Surely the Government must update our offer of support, in solidarity with the people of Uganda.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady makes several important points, and I thank her for the tone and content of her comments. She asked a number of questions. We are in very close touch with the African Union and the SADC. I should emphasise that Uganda has designated the ADF a terrorist organisation, and the Ugandan defence forces are tracking the perpetrators, as the President has made clear.
The hon. Lady asked about illicit financial flows. She will know from the “Integrated Review Refresh” that tackling those flows of stolen and dirty money is a high priority for the Prime Minister. We are actively engaged in working out how we can do more on that front.
Finally, on the processes that Britain is engaged in supporting, the Nairobi process, to which we have provided funding, is a very important aspect of how we bring  some sort of order to the eastern DRC, which, as the hon. Lady implied and knows well, is a source of enormous worry to all the surrounding countries, as well as to us and many others.

Vicky Ford: I thank my good friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for securing this urgent question. I have visited schools in Uganda. They should be happy and safe places. This is yet another tragedy. I am concerned about rising violence throughout the region. Since the war started in Sudan, there have been ominous reports of waves of ethnic violence in El Geneina in Darfur. It may be that the Rapid Support Forces are rekindling genocide in Darfur. Genocide has happened there before, and it may be happening again.
It is incredibly important that the international community keeps shining a spotlight on this and that we break this culture of impunity, because when one violent organisation thinks it can get away with it in one part of Africa, another violent organisation thinks it will get away with another atrocity in another part of Africa. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet members of the UK’s Darfur community who are desperate to tell people what is going on there so that they can whistleblow on what might be genocide again?

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend will know that I have met recently with the Darfur community, but things have changed since that meeting, so I take on board her final point. She also made a point about the war in Sudan, which means there is the possibility—perhaps the likelihood—that this area of disorder, conflict and humanitarian disaster could stretch from the middle east right the way down to southern Africa. She is completely right about that.
My right hon. Friend is also right to say that impunity must not be allowed to stand on this or any other violent acts. The Ugandans are pursuing the perpetrators. The Ugandan commander-in-chief of land forces has been to the area and was joined by the commander of Operation Shuja, which is the Ugandan deployment in the eastern DRC specifically to combat the ADF. I hope that that, in part, answers her question.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Drew Hendry: This is a shocking terrorist crime, and I put on record my party’s condolences to the families of those murdered in this horrific attack. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on bringing attention to this crime, which has had too little of that.
The people who carried out this atrocity are not an unknown group. They have already been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by Uganda and the United States of America. When will the UK Government finally join those countries in proscribing them too? What will the UK Government do to support Uganda in response to this attack and to the ongoing threats that clearly exist there?
Lasting solutions can only be achieved by Governments in this region with outside support investing in peacebuilding and civic society building. Military cannot be the only  option, so does the Minister agree that it would be a mistake to continue cutting aid in the sub-Saharan area and, indeed, worldwide?

Andrew Mitchell: On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, we are deploying very large amounts of British taxpayers’ money in the area, as he suggests, and we are ensuring that we are light on our feet and using that to good humanitarian effect. If he looks at some of the programmes I have announced recently, he will see that they directly affect the humanitarian position, particularly for girls and women.
In respect of what Britain is doing to try to ensure greater security in the eastern DRC and on the border to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although we never discuss proscription and other security measures in advance, he may rest assured that the British Government are fully engaged, not least through the Nairobi peace process, in doing anything that we can to bring back stability to this very troubled part of the world.

Mary Robinson: I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this really important question before the House. It is a dastardly and awful attack—it is desperate—and the people living along that border will be fearful for their lives and living with a heightened sense of fear and danger. Could my right hon. Friend set out what measures we are taking across that border between Congo and Uganda to help those people who are living in fear every day?

Andrew Mitchell: Britain has been heavily engaged through both the Luanda and the Nairobi peace processes in trying to tackle that very problem, and we will continue that engagement until we are finally successful.

Sammy Wilson: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this urgent question. I know that he has been diligent in highlighting these issues, as have so many organisations—such as Open Doors—that have also highlighted the persecution of Christians and other minority religious groups across the world. I chide him in just one way: do not fall into BBC-speak. These people are not militants, but terrorists. They are terrorists who have blood on their hands and engage in the cruellest activities to promote their cause.
May I ask the Minister two questions? First, we have a foreign aid budget, and this is not just about Uganda,  but Nigeria and other parts of central Africa where these occurrences are happening almost daily. How can our aid budget be targeted in such a way as to help those who are victims or potential victims? Secondly, it seems that some Governments—either because they do not have the resources or do not have the willpower—are not pursuing these terrorists in the way they should. What discussions has the Minister had to ensure that those Governments take action where possible, and get help from our own Government in doing so?

Andrew Mitchell: On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, as I said, the Ugandan commander-in-chief of land forces has been there, and the Ugandan army is pursuing the perpetrators. The right hon. Gentleman added very eloquently to the statement and comments of our hon. Friend the Member for Strangford, and I very much agree with what he says. On how the British development budget is spent, we spend a great deal of time and taxpayers’ money on trying to stop conflicts from starting, stopping them once they have started, and reconciling people once they are over. That is the aspect of the budget to which he was referring, and I think it is very effective and gives very good value to the British taxpayer.

Martin Docherty: I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on tabling this urgent question on a topic that I know he is passionate about. We learned from Michela Wrong’s excellent article in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs how the M23 paramilitary organisation, which is actively destabilising areas of both the DRC and Uganda, has been given direct economic and military aid supported by the Rwandan Government in a deliberate strategy of President Paul Kagame, similar to that which they abandoned under pressure in 2012. Given the leverage that this Government now have with that regime, what assurances has the Minister—who I believe is an admirer of President Kagame—sought from the Rwandan Government that they will respect the sovereignty of their neighbours in the region, lest we provoke a wider humanitarian crisis in the great lakes?

Andrew Mitchell: I expect to see the Foreign Minister of Rwanda within the next 24 hours, and I will say to him what we say to all of those who are engaged in fighting, profiteering or causing human misery in the eastern DRC: that we urge everyone to be part of the Nairobi and, indeed, the Luanda peace processes. We urge everyone to lay down their weapons and allow a peace process, which can also ensure that humanitarian aid reaches people who desperately need it.

Cost of Living Support

Tom Pursglove: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the progress of delivery of cost of living support.
The Government understand the pressures that households face in the current climate. We are all familiar with the global factors that are the root causes of costs being higher, including President Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine and the aftermath of the pandemic. We are committed to delivering on our priority to halve inflation, which will help ease those pressures for everyone and raise living standards.
Alongside that important work, we continue to implement our wide-ranging and significant package of cost of living measures to support the most vulnerable during 2023 and 2024. We have increased benefits and state pensions by 10.1%, and increased the benefit cap by the same amount so that more people are helped by the uprating. For low-paid workers, we have increased the national living wage by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour. That represents an increase of more than £1,600 to the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage. That increase, and the increases we made to the national minimum wage in April, have given a pay rise to about 2.9 million workers.
To help parents, we are undertaking a significant expansion of childcare, including a rise, later this month, of nearly 50% in the maximum amount of childcare payments for people on universal credit. For the most vulnerable, the £842 million extension of our household support fund into 2023-24 means that councils across England can continue to help families with the cost of groceries, bills and other essentials. Taking into account the extra money that we have provided through Barnett funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who can decide how they allocate that money, we have committed an extra £1 billion. That is on top of what we have provided since October 2021, and brings total funding to £2.5 billion.
With energy bills being one of families’ biggest worries, the energy price guarantee will also remain in place as a safety net until the end of March 2024, should energy prices increase significantly during that period. Since that energy bills support began in October 2022, the Government have covered about half of a typical household energy bill this past winter, and by the end of June will have saved a typical household around £1,500. We are also building on and extending the one-off cash payments we provided during 2022-23 that saw us make more than 30 million cost of living payments, including a £150 disability cost of living payment to 6 million people, up to £650 for more than 8 million households on means-tested benefits, and an additional £300 on top of the winter fuel payment for more than 8 million pensioner households. Those payments put hundreds of pounds directly, and at pace, into the pockets of millions of people.
However, we recognise that cost of living pressures continue, particularly for the most vulnerable households. That is why we continue to provide targeted support to help those most impacted by rising prices throughout this financial year, including more support for people  on means-tested benefits such as universal credit, with up to three cost of living payments totalling up to £900. The Government have already delivered the first £301 payment to 8.3 million households—support worth £2.5 billion. The two further payments of £300 and £299 will be made in the autumn and the spring, and pensioner households will get an additional £300 on top of their annual winter fuel payment this winter, as they did last year.
I am pleased to be able to confirm to the House that from today, to help with the additional costs that disabled people face, more than 6 million people across the UK on eligible extra-costs disability benefits will start to receive a £150 disability cost of living payment. Those cash payments, which we estimate will be worth around £1 billion, will be automatically transferred into people’s bank accounts, with those eligible for the support not needing to take any action. By the end of Monday 26 June, we plan to have made 99% of payments to those already eligible—that is millions of payments being made in just seven days. Most remaining already eligible people will receive their payment by 4 July. We estimate that nearly 60% of individuals who receive an extra-costs disability benefit will also receive the means-tested benefit cost of living payment, and more than 85% will receive either of, or both, the means-tested pensioner payments.
This Government will always protect the most vulnerable, but we are also helping to improve living standards for everyone by getting more people into, and progressing in, better-paid jobs. That is the surest and most sustainable way to raise incomes and grow the economy. The number of people in employment has increased to a record high, but by removing the barriers that stop people from working, we are reducing the number of people who are economically inactive—those who are neither working nor actively looking for work. It is encouraging that last week’s labour market statistics show a further fall in inactivity of 140,000, or 0.4%, on the quarter.
We are tackling inflation to help to manage the cost of living for all households and providing extra targeted support for those that need it. The disability cost of living payments, landing in millions of bank accounts from today as part of our wider support package, underline our commitment to supporting disabled people. That is reflected in how we are stepping up our employment support for disabled people and people with health conditions; ensuring people can access the right support at the right time and have a better overall experience when applying for and receiving health and disability benefits; and transforming the health and disability benefits system so that it focuses on what people can do, rather than on what they cannot. It is also reflected in the fact that we expect to spend over £78 billion in 2023-24 on benefits to support disabled people and those with health conditions, which is 3.1% of GDP.
With the Government’s significant package of cost of living support, worth over £94 billion in 2022-23 and 2023-24, we are ensuring that those most in need are protected from the worst impacts of rising prices, putting more pounds in people’s pockets and providing some peace of mind to the most vulnerable in society.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Jon Ashworth: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, but let us be clear: he has come to the House today and is asking us to congratulate him on this payment when, after 13 years, the number of disabled people living in poverty is up by over 1 million. He is asking us to congratulate him on this payment when, almost every day now, we hear stories of disabled people cutting back on hot meals, showers and washing their clothes, because otherwise they would not be able to afford to use the equipment that helps them get by in life. He is asking us to congratulate him when, after 13 years of Conservative Government, child poverty is up by 600,000 and pensioner poverty is up by 400,000. He is asking us to congratulate him when we have a cost of living crisis now so severe that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation today reports that nearly 6 million of the poorest households are forced to skip meals and 7 million of the poorest families are going without food, heating or even basic toiletries.
The Minister talks about employment, but there are 2.5 million people out of work for reasons of sickness or disability. The working-age disability benefit bill is going to go up to around £25 billion, but many people out of work want to work. That is why we proposed an “into work guarantee” welfare reform to help people to move off sickness benefits and into work. Instead of offering help now to people out of work, the Government are actually cutting disability employment advisers by 10%. Because the Government are failing to do their part in helping to tame inflation, disabled people in work and families are seeing the value of their wages ravaged by inflation. In fact, the value of this disability payment is worth £5 less in real terms than when the Chancellor announced it in the autumn statement because of inflation.
The Government are failing to play their part in helping to tame inflation. When combined with them running the economy off the cliff last autumn, policies that led to turmoil on the markets and a run on pension funds, that means that thousands of disabled people, thousands of working families and even pensioners are living in fear of the letter they will soon be getting this year telling them it is time to remortgage. Disabled people and families are facing hundreds or indeed thousands of pounds more on their refinanced mortgage over the coming years, with 1.3 million homes this year collectively paying £10 billion extra on mortgages—a Tory mortgage premium. Disabled homeowners and families are paying the price—literally paying the price—for 13 years of Tory economic failure. So my question is very simple: when so many disabled people and so many families are facing more on their mortgage because of decisions taken by this Government, how on earth does the Minister expect them to cope?

Tom Pursglove: I obviously appreciate the shadow Secretary of State taking the time to come to respond to this statement today. On the fundamental point of supporting people properly, I do not think that there is disagreement between us. We disagree on the detail of this and I think it is substantial and significant that, as I set out earlier, we are providing £94 billion of comprehensive cost of living support to people over 2022-23 and into 2023-24. That is structured support  that is hitting people’s bank accounts in the way I have described, including the latest tranche of support through the disability cost of living payment, but there is also the discretionary support that can be provided through local authorities to meet the needs that exist, where they do not necessarily neatly fit into those structured support packages. That is significant support and he should welcome it.
I was very interested to hear what the shadow Secretary of State had to say about our employment-related measures. I would be absolutely delighted if he were to come forward and welcome the structural reform that this Government are determined to make to help to support more disabled people and people with health conditions into work, removing the jeopardy they feel around the benefit system to smooth that journey.
There is also the tailored support that we want to provide alongside that to improve the journey through the system and to unlock people’s aspirations—namely, universal support, that tried and tested supported employment model through individual placement and support in primary care in the first year, but growing beyond that. That is welcome support that will identify people’s needs and support them on a case-by-case basis to meet those objectives, with of course all the benefits that that brings, as well as keeping people well in work.
The Work Well partnerships are building capacity alongside NHS services. They are meaningful interventions on the supply side that this Government are making, and I think they are to be welcomed. It would have been nice for him to welcome the structured and more permanent support that we want to provide to help people to live more fulfilling lives, with employment at the heart of that.
The shadow Secretary of State also said, effectively, that the United Kingdom stands alone in these challenges. That is absolutely not the case. I was at the United Nations last week representing our country and it is fair to say, from many of the conversations I had with others, that the challenges we are facing are repeated in their countries—not just in Europe, but much further afield. For example, in the US, the Federal Reserve has increased rates at the fastest pace since the 1980s and in Europe interest rates are at their highest level in more than two decades. What we will do is take a responsible approach. The Chancellor of the Exchequer set that out in questions just now. What we will not be doing is making unaffordable spending pledges that will simply lead to higher rates in the long term. That is not the way to address these issues effectively.
On the specific issue of mortgages, again, we must not do anything that only fuels the challenges that households face. We have made a number of changes, including through support for mortgage interest and the scheme around that. For example, from April this year, claimants can be eligible for SMI from three months instead of nine. We have also abolished the zero earnings rule to allow claimants to continue receiving support while in work and on UC. The interest rate we pay is based on the Bank of England-published average mortgage rate, which increased from 2.09% to 2.65% on 10 May 2023. We of course continue to have important and receptive engagement with lenders about that support.
What is clear is that the Opposition have either no plan or an uncosted plan. The latter would simply fuel inflation and make matters worse. In contrast, what we  will get on and do is provide the support that we have outlined, which is comprehensive and is meeting people’s needs, but of course we keep that package under constant review. We are also focused on our fundamental mission, which is to bring inflation down in the way we have described.

Jake Berry: I congratulate the Minister on what is a meaningful package, which particularly will be of help to disabled constituents of mine in Rossendale and Darwen, but will he accept that the measures that put money back in people’s pocket when they rely on benefits will not dent the challenges people are facing when it comes to their mortgage going up by hundreds of pounds a week or a month? Will he talk to his friends at the Treasury about reintroducing mortgage interest relief at source, which is a true Conservative way of tackling the cost of living crisis by cutting taxes and putting money back in the pockets of the squeezed middle?

Tom Pursglove: My right hon. Friend is trying to tempt me to make commitments on behalf of the Treasury today that of course I am not able to do, but what I am able to do is ensure that the point he has made in this debate is relayed to Treasury colleagues. Again, there are ongoing conversations being had involving the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who leads on housing within the Department for Work and Pensions, and colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, for example, around some of the challenges that people are facing with housing. She is working proactively on this, along with colleagues elsewhere.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

David Linden: I too thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, although in reality it is a nine-page press release rehash of previous Government announcements. The only new thing today is the £150 disability payment. Will the Minister reflect on the excellent report from Scope, “Disability Price Tag 2023: the extra cost of disability”, which shows that, on average, disabled households have expenditure that is £975 higher per month? We know that, for example, as a result of specialised diets, higher transport costs, higher energy costs and higher insurance premiums, there is a cost to disabled people.
Unfortunately, the Government do not have a good record when it comes to disabled people, particularly the 2.5 million legacy benefit claimants who were so cruelly overlooked during the pandemic and did not get the equivalent of the £20 uplift. I welcome the £150, but I ask the Minister to reflect on the wise words of Scope, which says that that will not touch the sides. To that end, as the Government are not quite getting this, may I invite the Minister to come to Glasgow to meet me and the Glasgow Disability Alliance, where he will hear the message, loud and clear, that this simply does not go far enough and that far too many people are going to struggle unless the Government up their game?

Tom Pursglove: The key point I would make, which I set out in my introductory statement, is that there is a significant alignment; people receiving the disability  cost of living payment are also receiving various other parts of the support package. Eight-five per cent of those who qualify for the disability cost of living payment are also receiving a mean-tested or the pensioner cost of living payment. They are receiving various parts of the package of support. We continue to keep those matters under constant review, as Members would expect. I have a meeting later today with a Minister in the Scottish Government and no doubt matters relating to the cost of living will come up. As a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I am committed and determined to visit all parts of the United Kingdom and I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about where I might go.

Bob Stewart: Can I re-emphasise the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Sir Jake Berry)? Huge numbers of constituents are coming to me about the mortgage changes. They are absolutely terrified. I know that the Government are doing all they can, but can I ask them to redouble their efforts because this is going to have a huge impact on the cost of living?

Tom Pursglove: I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his question. This is a significant issue in his constituency and a challenge in constituencies across the country. Ministers across the Government are mindful of it. It draws focus back to the key, overarching mission of this Government and the economic plan that the Chancellor and Prime Minister are advancing. That is why it is so critical that we tackle the inflationary pressures. We must not add to those inflationary pressures. If we can deal with that root cause, that is the best way to help people in that situation.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

Stephen Timms: The cost of living payments have made a vital contribution to millions of families in supporting people through the current crisis and I welcome the contribution they have made. However, the need for them does reflect, particularly following the removal of the £20 a week uplift from universal credit, the historically low headline level of benefits—at the moment, in real terms, the lowest for 40 years. What consideration are the Minister and his colleagues in the Department giving to consolidating those occasional one-off payments into the mainstream benefits— universal credit and the rest—so that people can budget with confidence, week by week?

Tom Pursglove: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has his annual review of benefits and pension levels, where all matters are properly considered in the usual way. Decisions are made and announced through those formal processes. It is worth saying in relation to disability spending more generally that in 2027-28 total disability spending is forecast to be over £41.6 billion higher in real terms compared with 2010. We are spending very significant sums of money on support for disabled people. We also have those cost of living packages of support in place for them. We will continue to be on the side of helping people through this difficult time, supporting where we can and cushioning the impacts of those challenges.  Again, I invite Opposition Members to join the support for the overarching mission of this Government, which is to get inflation down and to relieve those pressures.

Aaron Bell: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and the £150 that is going into the bank accounts of 6 million people, including many of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I welcome all the support that he outlined, including on energy bills for the entire country, households and businesses, over the winter. I welcome that energy bills are about to start falling at last, which I know will be welcome to everybody across the House. However, does he agree that the best way for us to help the most vulnerable is to help them into well-paid, sustainable jobs, whether part-time or full-time? We should look for support from employers for adaptations and managing conditions in doing that.

Tom Pursglove: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Work is such an important part of relieving some of those pressures, but it is also important for people in the longer term. We want more people to unlock their potential and access all the benefits and opportunity that work brings. We see that as a partnership, and we want to continue to deepen that commitment as a Government, working collaboratively with employers to unlock those opportunities. Schemes such as Access to Work Plus, which we have piloted, evaluated, and are now rolling out, are all about crafting roles, working with an individual and an employer, where there is a determination to employ a disabled person. We see massive benefit to that approach, not just for the business and our economy, but also for the disabled person in question.

Debbie Abrahams: I rise to support what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) has just said. We cannot underestimate the impact of the last 12 years of cuts to the baseline in support and social security, with £33 billion taken out of working-age budgets. The temporary one-off payments do not even touch the sides, and that is resulting in one in three disabled people living in poverty, which is twice the number of non-disabled people. Let me again ask the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham put to the Minister: when will he be increasing the uplift?

Tom Pursglove: I repeat what I said in response to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. We are determined to try to get to grips with the longer-term pressures that people face. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned the “Disability Price Tag” report by Scope. One of those pressure is energy costs, and one thing that colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are currently looking at is the wholescale market reform of our energy market. As part of that, they are considering the issue of social tariffs and support, to see how we best support those costs in the longer term. The best way to tackle those issues in the round and get those pressures down, is by addressing the inflationary challenge that we are currently experiencing. That is what the Government are focused  on at the moment, and that is the right approach. On the wider matter in response to the question from the Chair of the Committee, we will take that away and it will be considered in the usual way as part of the annual process.

Wendy Chamberlain: Scope’s “Disability Price Tag” report has already been mentioned, but the £975 a month means that the extra payment of £150 does not cover even a week of additional costs, and it points to the lack of sufficiency for social security that the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee referred to. My private Member’s Bill recently became the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, and when I met constituents they had either had to give up work because of their caring responsibilities, or they had lost carer’s allowance because of the hours they were working. The Minister talks about a transformation of the system. Does he agree that carer’s allowance is ripe for reform?

Tom Pursglove: The hon. Lady and I have previously had exchanges on carer’s allowance, and the approach we take is to consider that when we have our deliberations on annual uprating. We will make modification to that when it is affordable and appropriate, but I hear her representation. I also congratulate her on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which introduces an important change. I know that a lot of effort went into that behind the scenes, and I congratulate her on it.

Derek Twigg: I cannot recall a time when so many families and individuals have contacted my office because they cannot afford to live, whether that is being able to buy food, heat the house, or do other things as a family. We have seen the start of a fall in energy prices, but the fact remains that for the foreseeable future they will be much higher than they were before the start of this crisis. We are also seeing problems with interest rates and various other pressures on families. In particular, rents are outstripping local housing allowance by a considerable amount in my local area, and people are being evicted. On the housing front, pressures from interest rates are starting to bite, and people cannot afford the rents that are now being charged in the private sector. What is the Minister going to do about that?

Tom Pursglove: On that specific point, I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the points I made earlier about some of the ongoing work, but I will also ask my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) to provide him with a response to that question, because I know she is engaging with colleagues elsewhere in the Government around those challenges.

Drew Hendry: The Minister has already acknowledged the additional costs of nearly £1,000 a month that disabled households have over able-bodied households, but those costs are disproportionately higher in rural areas such as the highlands, which I represent with my constituency. People there have extra costs for transport, energy and so on. Is it not time that the Government did more to compensate people with those extreme costs? Would a start not be to make up for what they lost with the universal credit mismatch during the pandemic and, indeed, to restore the £20 a week on universal credit immediately?

Tom Pursglove: There is no plan to restore that £20 uplift in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes, but in relation to disability benefits, I draw his attention to the statistics and figures I set out earlier. There will also be, as I have announced, an evaluation of the cost of living payments in the autumn, which will no doubt take into account a whole host of factors and be thoroughgoing in that. I am also working with the disability unit to take a close look at the costs that people are experiencing during this cost of living challenge, because we want to learn from those challenges for the future.

Lyn Brown: When visiting schools, I am told by young children that it is not their turn to eat tonight. Schools tell me that pupils take leftovers from school friends so that they can eat a lunch. Rents are rocketing and households are paying almost £1,000 a year more on food than they did in 2021. Does the Minister honestly think that the support that the Government are offering is enough to stop rising hunger in constituencies such as mine?

Tom Pursglove: I of course recognise that food prices are a challenge not just here in the UK, but abroad, too. For example, I am aware that food inflation here is 19%, but within the EU it is 19% and in the euro area it is 18%. People are experiencing these significant challenges not just here, but abroad.[Official Report, 16 October 2023, Vol. 738, c. 2MC.] I have seen reports just today of retailers discounting products to try to help with some of these pressures, which goes beyond the package of support that the Government are providing. That £94 billion figure is not insignificant. We also continue to support families on a case-by-case basis through the household support fund, and I encourage the hon. Lady to signpost her constituents to that support, because where people have particular needs and challenges, they can be supported through that help.

Jonathan Edwards: In his statement, the Minister mentioned support with energy bills. Earlier this week I received an email from a constituent in the village of Capel Hendre in my constituency, which is on the mains gas network, but a large proportion of households use alternative fuels such as heating oil. The payment on alternative fuels was not made directly through electricity bills, but people had to apply for it. She has missed the deadline for the alternative fuels payment scheme. I know this is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but will he raise with the responsible Minister the fact that a cohort of people have missed out? Is there a possibility of reopening the scheme so that constituents can get the support to which they are entitled?

Tom Pursglove: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his nifty way of getting that important question into the proceedings this afternoon. If he could share those details with me, I will gladly make sure that that reaches the Minister responsible at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Marsha de Cordova: It is worth noting that the UK Government were the first Government to be investigated by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for their treatment of disabled people. We all know the additional costs that disabled people face—they are a fact—with higher energy bills and so forth. The disability price tag is around £975 extra  a month. The woeful support of the cost of living payments will not go anywhere near meeting those additional needs, so why on earth does the Minister think it is enough? We do not need any more analysis—the evidence is there, so why can he not take action now?

Tom Pursglove: I reiterate the point that people often receive multiple parts of the comprehensive cost of living support that we are providing. The hon. Lady also made a point about the UN, but my experience from speaking to counterparts from across the world at the UN last week and being involved in the discussions there was that people often look to the United Kingdom as being a world leader on these matters. It is important to make that point in the context of the comment she just made. The fact is that we are continuing to keep under review the package of support that is provided, but it is worth recognising that people often receive multiple parts of the package alongside the disability cost of living payment.

Marion Fellows: It was a real pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is always eloquent when it comes to disabled people. We have heard already about the support with the £150 extra. I thank the Minister for that; it is literally better than nothing. Many disabled people are trying to get into work, because they have to work to be able to afford the basics in life. There is a disability income gap, as the Minister will be aware. Will he look back on his White Paper, because he missed out the delays that people are now facing to get support from Access to Work? It is impossible, almost. Disabled people are losing jobs daily, because they cannot get the support they need when they need it. Will the Minister review that and try to help disabled people be able to afford more?

Tom Pursglove: The hon. Lady knows, because we meet regularly to talk about these issues, my absolute determination to deliver on greater employment opportunities for disabled people. In fact, as I said earlier, I am meeting the Scottish Minister later today, where this issue is on the agenda. I hope that we can move forward with our reforms in a constructive, collaborative manner, so that they benefit people across the United Kingdom to their fullest extent. We are putting additional resource into Access to Work to get through applications quicker, and a number of process changes have also been made. Those are in the early stages, but the anecdotal commentary I am receiving from officials is that with some of these changes, we are seeing cases processed much more quickly.

Clive Efford: The Resolution Foundation estimates that mortgage payers will pay an average of £2,900 more in the next year due to increases in interest rates. Some 13% of retirees are still paying mortgages at the time of retirement, and 770,000 households are not claiming pension credit, so do not qualify for pension credit payments. This Government have been a disaster for pensioners, particularly those with mortgages. If the Minister has done his research, can he tell us how many people on pension credit applied for mortgage interest support? How many pensioners are facing interest rates rising faster than their pensions?

Tom Pursglove: I do not have those figures to hand for this debate, but I will take that request away and ask ministerial colleagues in the Department to respond.

Rachael Maskell: There is no room for complacency. Our constituents are absolutely desperate. On Saturday night, I got another email from a constituent who literally had no money left. She was spiralling into debt, and she could not afford her rent, food or energy. Today’s announcement will do nothing to help her, and it will do nothing to help so many of my constituents who are in such desperation. What steps has the Minister taken to look at the essentials guarantee that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is putting forward, which would see a consistent uplift in all benefits to help people such as my constituent?

Tom Pursglove: I am obviously not familiar with the circumstances of the individual in question, so it is impossible for me to comment on the support that he or she may or may not be eligible to receive. I always encourage people to apply for any support to which they might be entitled. Benefit calculators are available on the gov.uk website to help people to do that. The household support fund is being delivered in the hon. Lady’s community, but if she wishes to share some details with me about that specific case, I will gladly take that away to look at. As I said earlier, there is also the opportunity, with the annual decisions taken within the Department, for all these issues to be considered.

Patrick Grady: The Minister said rather dismissively to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) that the Government have no plans to reinstate the universal credit uplift. Has he done any analysis of the really positive impact that that uplift had on people  and the negative impact of taking it away? At the very least, will he look at replicating across the whole of the UK the Scottish child payment of £25 a week, which is made to the people who need it most?

Tom Pursglove: We have no plans to replicate the Scottish child payment here in England. I will happily look at the wider report to which the hon. Member referred.

Christian Wakeford: The cost of living crisis has had an impact on businesses in my constituency such as Lomas News, whose energy bills went up by 400%. In April, it got relief of £4.93. With food inflation up, rents up, mortgages up and bills still high, the support is not enough, is it?

Tom Pursglove: We are continuing to provide comprehensive support to both individuals and businesses to get them through this difficult time, and we have done that consistently. Of course, the hon. Member stood on the same manifesto that I did, so I very much hope that he will subscribe, as I do, to the Government’s overarching mission to get inflation down, which will relieve the very challenges to which he alludes.

Bill Presented

Outdoor Education Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tim Farron presented a Bill to require that every child be offered at least one outdoor education experience during primary school years and at least one such experience during secondary school years; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 329).

Children in Hospital for Extended Periods (Report to Parliament)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Oliver Heald: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the merits of providing financial support for parents of children receiving care in hospital for extended periods.
My constituent Ceri Menai-Davis contacted me after the loss of his six-year-old son Hugh to a rare cancer on 18 September 2021. He and his wife Frances are in the Gallery today. They had a terrible ordeal for more than 10 months, attending hospital and at times commuting daily, as they watched their son rapidly decline over a number of months in hospital from a sporty youngster to his sad passing. When Mr Menai-Davis contacted me at the end of 2021, he and his wife had just set up a charity called It’s Never You, which are the words that Mrs Menai-Davis said to her husband when they got the diagnosis. They wanted to help parents of very ill children in hospital with mental and physical support and to call for some financial help.
Cases where children are in hospital for extended periods are rare. The reply I received to a written question showed that about 4,000 children a year spend more than two months continuously in hospital. Of course, not all of those are cases where the parents go to hospital every day or stay there.
Mr Menai-Davis asked if I could arrange for him to meet a Health Minister to lobby for better care of parents. I did that, and the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), held a meeting with us on 24 March 2022, where he heard about a range of practical problems with care for parents in hospitals, including the availability of food and mental support. The Minister asked for full details, and we prepared documents, which we sent to him, to inform the work on the new generation of children’s hospitals, including on facilities for parents of very sick children. He responded constructively on issues of outreach to parents, food for parents staying in hospital with children, improved facilities for families in the new hospitals programme and linking NHS charities with the work of It’s Never You.
Through my constituents’ charity, parents or guardians of sick children benefit by connecting with a community of peers, finding support, including moral support, sharing experiences, and getting professionally sourced and reliable information via a social network. That is done not by the statutory authorities but through the Children’s Cancer Platform, which is the UK’s only platform built exclusively to support parents in this difficult situation. The charity has started to put wellbeing bags into hospitals such as Addenbrooke’s and Great Ormond Street; they are about to go into Oxford University Hospitals as well. The bags are well received. The charity is also present in Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds and many more places. It has partnered with several charities across the UK and aims to form an umbrella, whereby all relevant charities can be found in one place.
Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge is, of course, the major hospital for East Anglia, and it is also the site for a new children’s hospital. The team there have had productive meetings with Mr Menai-Davis in which he has shared insights, which the team have described to me as “inspiring”. However, the aspect of this ten-minute rule Bill raised by my constituent is the financial impact on parents of having to spend months in hospital supporting sick young children. My constituent is self-employed, and it cost him a lot to put his child first. He was able to manage only because of his strong personal position economically, but he feared for others who were less fortunate and found themselves in the same position. He gave me examples of people his charity is helping.
I have raised the financial issue with Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health and Social Care and have been pointed to some limited help, such as a parent being able to use their annual leave entitlement or unpaid parental leave for dependants. There is also bereavement leave, but there is not any specific state support for parents whose finances are affected because they have been unable to work due to spending so much time with their child in hospital.
A family in that situation may be able to claim universal credit or, if they are already on universal credit, to get an increase to compensate partly for the drop in their income, depending on the individual circumstances. Parents who have worked for the same employer for at least a year are entitled to 18 weeks’ unpaid parental leave for each child, which can be taken until the child’s 18th birthday, but there is nothing specific to deal with a situation such as occurred here.
In the Bill, I am asking for a report to be made to Parliament by the Secretary of State on
“the merits of providing financial support for parents of children receiving care in hospital for extended periods.”
That would not cost a great deal as there are so few cases of this sort, but it would mean that, in tragic circumstances such as these, all parents could concentrate on helping their children rather than worrying about money. In a way, the Bill is also about Ceri Menai-Davis and his wife Frances being able to help other parents who find themselves in the situation that they found themselves in. In some ways, it is a legacy for Hugh.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Oliver Heald, Dr Caroline Johnson, Dame Margaret Beckett, Sir Robert Syms, Valerie Vaz, Sir Paul Beresford, Gareth Thomas, Mrs Flick Drummond, Clive Efford, Selaine Saxby, Stephen McPartland and Jackie Doyle-Price present the Bill.
Sir Oliver Heald accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 328).

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to the Finance (No. 2) Bill: Procedure not later than 45 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker  which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Julie Marson.)

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Procedure)

Ordered,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about the application of section 12 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.—(Victoria Atkins.)

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Committee and the Public Bill Committee
[Relevant document: Sixteenth Report of the Treasury Committee, Tax Simplification, HC 1425.]

New Clause 4 - Domestic top-up tax to apply from  31 December 2023

“This Part has effect in relation to accounting periods commencing on or after 31 December 2023.”—(Victoria Atkins.)
This new clause makes it clear that the domestic top-up tax imposed by Part 4 of the bill commences at the same time as the multinational top-up tax imposed by Part 3 of the bill.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Victoria Atkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 4, at end insert—
“(2) The Treasury may by regulations amend subsection (1) by substituting a later date for the date for the time being specified there.”
Government new clause 5—Communications data.
New clause 1—Review of alternatives to the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed—
(a) conduct a review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge introduced by section 18 of this Act and other changes to tax-free pension allowances introduced by sections 19 to 23 of this Act, and
(b) lay before the House of Commons a report setting out recommendations arising from the review.
(2) The review must make recommendations on how the policies referred to in subsection (1)(a) could be replaced with an alternative approach that provided equivalent benefits only for NHS doctors.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact of the tax free pension allowance changes and to recommend an alternative approach targeted at NHS doctors.
New clause 2—Reports to Treasury Committee on measures to simplify tax system—
“(1) The Treasury must report to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons on steps taken by the Treasury and HMRC to simplify the tax system in the absence of the Office of Tax Simplification.
(2) Reports under this section must include information on steps to—
(a) simplify existing taxes, tax reliefs and allowances,
(b) simplify new taxes, tax reliefs and allowances,
(c) engage with stakeholders to understand needs for tax simplification,
(d) develop metrics to measure performance on tax simplification, and performance against those metrics.
(3) A report under this section must be sent to the Committee before the end of each calendar year after the year in which section 346 (abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification) comes into force.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to report annually to the Treasury Committee on tax simplification if the Office of Tax Simplification is abolished.
New clause 3—Review of public health and poverty effects of Act—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty across the UK including devolved nations and regions,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socioeconomic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the 2010 Equality Act across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions,
(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions, and
(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”
New clause 6—Review of business taxes—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed—
(a) conduct a review of the business taxes, and
(b) lay before the House of Commons a report setting out recommendations arising from the review.
(2) The review must make recommendations on how to—
(a) use business taxes to encourage and increase the investment of profits and revenue;
(b) ensure businesses have more certainty about the taxes to which they are subject; and
(c) ensure that the system of capital allowances operates effectively to incentivise investment, including for small businesses.
(3) In this section, ‘the business taxes’ includes any tax in respect of which this Act makes provision that is paid by a business, including in particular provisions made under sections 5 to 15 of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to conduct a review of business taxes, and to make recommendations on how to increase certainty and investment, before the next Finance Bill is published.
New clause 7—Statement on efforts to support implementation of the Pillar 2 model rules—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on how actions taken by the UK Government since October 2021 in relation to the implementation of the Pillar 2 model rules relate to the provisions of Part 3 of this Act.
(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must provide updates to the statement at intervals after that statement has been made of—
(a) three months;
(b) six months; and
(c) nine months.
(3) The statement, and the updates to it, must include—
(a) details of efforts by the UK Government to encourage more countries to implement the Pillar 2 rules; and
(b) details of any discussions the UK Government has had with other countries about making the rules more effective.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to report every three months for a year on the UK Government’s progress in working with other countries to extend and strengthen the global minimum corporate tax framework for large multinationals.
New clause 8—Review of energy (oil and gas) profits levy allowances—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of the passing of this Act—
(a) conduct a review of section 2(3) of the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022, as introduced by subsection 12(2) of this Act, and
(b) lay before the House of Commons a report arising from the review.
(2) The review must include consideration of the implications for the public finances of the provisions in section 2(3)—
(a) were all the provisions in section 2(3) to apply, and
(b) were the provisions in section 2(3)(b) not to apply.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the investment allowances introduced as part of the energy profits levy, and to set out what would happen if the allowance for all expenditure, apart from that spent on de-carbonisation, were removed.
New clause 9—Review of section 36—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact on the public finances of the measures provided for by section 36 of this Act (‘the section 36 measures’).
(2) The assessment must include details of any analysis by the Treasury or HMRC of—
(a) the amount of additional tax raised by the section 36 measures and,
(b) the number of individuals who are required to pay additional tax as a result of the section 36 measures.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact of the measures in the Act that affect people with non-domiciled status, including by setting out how many people will be required to pay additional tax and how much this will raise in total.
New clause 10—Review of new bands and rates of air passenger duty—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes to air passenger duty introduced by this Act on—
(a) the public finances;
(b) carbon emissions; and
(c) household finances.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider how households at a range of different income levels are affected by these changes.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to publish an assessment of this Act’s changes to air passenger duty on the public finances, carbon emissions, and on the finances of households at a range of different income levels.
New clause 11—Review of impact of tax changes in this Act on households—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes in this Act on household finances.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must consider how households at a range of different income levels are affected by these changes.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the changes in this Act on the finances of households at a range of different income levels.
New clause 12—Review of Part 5—
“(1) The Treasury must conduct a review of the provisions of Part 5 of this Act (electricity generator levy).
(2) The review must consider the case for ending or amending the charge on exceptional generation receipts when energy market conditions change.
(3) The report of the review must be published and laid before the House of Commons within six months of this Act being passed.”
This new clause would require the Government to conduct a review into the energy generator levy with a view to sunsetting the levy when market conditions change.
New clause 13—Review of effects of Act on the affordability of food—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of the measures of this Act, and in particular sections 1 to 4 (income tax), on the ability of households to afford the price of food.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the Act on the affordability of food.
New clause 14—Review of effects of Act on small businesses—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the likely impact of the measures of this Act on small businesses.
(2) The report must assess the effect on small businesses of any taxes charged under this Act, in the context of other financial pressures currently facing small businesses including—
(a) the rate of inflation, and
(b) b) the cost of energy.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of the Act on small business with particular regard to inflation and the cost of energy.
New clause 15—Review of effects of Act on SME R&D tax relief—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act a review of the impact of the measures in section 10 relating to research and development tax relief for small and medium-sized enterprises.
(2) The review must compare the impact of the relief before and after 1 April 2023, with regard to the following—
(a) the viability and competitiveness of UK technology start-up and scale-up businesses,
(b) the number of jobs created and lost in the UK technology sector, and
(c) long-term UK economic growth.
(3) In this section, ‘technology start-up’ means a business trading for no more than three years; with an average headcount of staff of less than 50 during that three-year period; and which spends at least 15% of its costs on research and development activities.
(4) In this section, ‘technology scale-up’ means a business that has achieved growth of 20% or more in either employment or turnover year on year for at least two years and has a minimum employee count of 10 at the start of the observation period; and spends at least 15% of its costs on research and development activities.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the effect of changes to SME R&D tax credits in this act on tech start-ups and scale-ups.
Government amendments 9 to 13.
Amendment 1, page 12, line 30, leave out clause 18.
Amendment 2, page 12, line 37, leave out clause 19.
Amendment 3, page 13, line 31, leave out clause 20.
Amendment 4, page 14, line 1, leave out clause 21.
Amendment 5, page 14, line 11, leave out clause 22.
Amendment 6, page 14, line 20, leave out clause 23.
Government amendments 14 to 16.
Amendment 22, in clause 115, page 74, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within one month of this Act coming into force, lay before the House of Commons an assessment of the impact of extending the provision of subsection (1) to wine which—
(a) is obtained from the alcoholic fermentation of fresh grapes or the must of fresh grapes and fortified with spirits,
(b) is included in one or more of the United Kingdom Geographical Indication Scheme registers, and
(c) is of an alcoholic strength of at least 15.5% but not exceeding 20%.”
This amendment requires the Chancellor to lay before the House an assessment of the impact of providing comparable transitional relief to fortified wine made from fresh grapes, such as port and sherry, as has been made available to other forms of table wine.
Amendment 20, in clause 264, page 188, line 7, at end insert—
“(2) The Treasury may by regulations amend subsection (1) by substituting a later date for the date for the time being specified there.”
Amendment 23, in clause 278, page 198, line 9, after “costs” insert “and relevant investment expenditure”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 24, in clause 278, page 198, line 12 at end insert—
“Where the generating undertaking is a generator of renewable energy, determine the amount of relevant investment expenditure and also subtract that amount.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 23, 25 and 26 would allow generators of renewable energy to offset money re-invested in renewable projects against the levy.
Amendment 25, in clause 279, page 199, line 21, at end insert—
“a ‘generator of renewable energy’ means—
(a) a company, other than a member of a group, that operates, or
(b) a group of companies that includes at least one member who operates a generating station generating electricity from a renewable source within the meaning of section 32M of the Energy Act 1989;
‘relevant investment expenditure’ means any profits of a generator of renewable energy that have been re-invested in renewable projects;”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 26, in clause 279, page 199, line 26, at end insert—
“a ‘renewable project’ is any project involving the generation of electricity from a renewable source within the meaning of section 32M of the Energy Act 1989;”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendments 17 to 19.
Amendment 7, page 265, line 2, leave out clause 346.
This amendment would leave out Clause 346, which abolishes the Office of Tax Simplification.
Amendment 21, in schedule 16, page 399, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) The Treasury may by regulations amend subsection 2(a) by substituting later dates for the dates for the time being specified there.”
The aim of this amendment is to enable the Treasury to extend the permitted period for multinational groups to make transitional safe harbour elections, reducing the compliance burden, in the event that other countries are slow to follow suit in implementing these rules.

Victoria Atkins: Let me first thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in debates on the Finance Bill so far. Today is Report stage, but there has been intense scrutiny of many measures in the Bill, not just line by line in Committee on the Committee Corridor but, importantly, in Committee of the whole House. I hope that I will hear from right hon. and hon. Members on some of those discussions.
We are focusing on a number of proposed amendments to the Bill, which I will address in turn. Many of the Government’s amendments focus on ensuring the proper functioning of the legislation in response to scrutiny from businesses, business representative groups, parliamentarians and feedback. Others take forward responses to substantive issues that have emerged during the Bill’s passage. This is an exercise of how scrutiny in this place works, and I hope it works well. I will address each Government amendment in turn in this part of the debate. To reassure colleagues, I want to listen to the debates that will follow on non-Government amendments and proposed new clauses, and I hope to deal with points raised by right hon. and hon. Members when I wind up.
Government amendments 9 and 10 seek to ensure that our policy of full expensing achieves its intended affect. The existing wording can result in balancing charges being incorrectly calculated by not applying the correct apportionment to the disposal receipts. This is a straightforward and necessary technical adjustment to a policy that will help businesses to invest with confidence and boost UK productivity.
Government amendments 11, 12 and 13 provide that both the decarbonisation allowance and the existing investment allowance in the energy profits levy work as intended. They correct unintended exclusions by revising definitions to ensure that the investment allowances apply throughout the UK, in UK waters and on the United Kingdom continental shelf.
Government amendment 14 is a minor technical amendment that concerns the lifetime allowance—specifically, in clause 23, which allows modifications of certain existing transitional protections to ensure that stand-alone lump sums can continue to be paid to those who are entitled. The amendment clarifies the tax treatment for any amount above the limited 5 April maximum. The amendment is required to avoid an unintended outcome that would otherwise arise as a result of the removal of the lifetime allowance charge, whereby those who are entitled to stand-alone lump sums may not have been able to access their full benefit. The amendment corrects that. We are grateful to members of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs pensions industry stakeholder forum for raising the issue.
New clause 4 relates to the domestic minimum top-up tax, which is part of the global minimum tax agreement. That agreement protects against large multinational groups and companies using aggressive tax planning and shifting their UK profits overseas. The amendment simply puts beyond doubt that the commencement date for the domestic top-up tax aligns with the multinational top-up tax and the internationally agreed timings, and  no earlier. The start date is for accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2023. We will discuss the global minimum tax agreement in more detail later, precisely because it is of particular interest to right hon. and hon. Members. I will respond to those further arguments and suggestions when I wind up.
Amendments 15 and 16 relate to the Bill’s provisions on alcohol duties and seek to ensure that alcoholic products produced overseas and imported into the UK are not excluded from the new draught relief or small producer relief. This is a technical amendment to ensure that the new reliefs apply equally to alcoholic products produced domestically and overseas and meet the originally intended policy aims. The amendments mean that the condition to be approved by HMRC applies to UK producers only.
Government amendment 17 on the electricity generator levy seeks to ensure that the provision works as intended and in accordance with the policy that the Government set out at the end of last year in its published technical notes in legislation. It will confirm that receipts of joint ventures attributed to their members are taxed whether or not the member is a generator, to ensure that those members are liable as intended. The amendment will ensure that the Government’s policy intention is clear in the specific provisions for joint venture members, and that the electricity generator levy collects the right amount of tax from the correct taxpayers.
Government amendments 18 and 19 intend to avoid any uncertainty for those planning new deposit return schemes, which introduces rules on accounting for VAT on deposits charged under statutory deposit return schemes. The amendment will put beyond doubt that VAT is due on unreturned drink deposits, removing any uncertainty for affected businesses.
New clause 5 makes technical changes to ensure HMRC’s civil information powers work as Parliament intended, to support its tax collection functions. The new clause will clarify the law to put beyond doubt that HMRC may continue to collect what is termed “communications data”, including essential information such as names, addresses and dates of birth from businesses and third parties. Following a recent change by the Home Office to its interpretation of communications data under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, the clause will simply ensure that existing legislation continues to function exactly as Parliament originally intended, including the important safeguards already in place for the protection of citizens’ data.

Stewart Hosie: The subparagraphs that new clause 5 intends to delete were not in the original Finance Act 2008 but were added by the Investigatory Powers Act. I am at a loss as to why it is necessary to remove them from that Act to make it work in the way intended.

Victoria Atkins: That gives me the opportunity to declare that I sat not only on the Joint Committee for that Bill but on the Select Committee. There was a great deal of concentration and discussion, as I recall—the House will have to forgive me as I am rolodexing back several years in my memory—about the meaning of communications data, because of the sensitivities in  relation to some of the powers rightly given to our security services in order to safeguard national security and for other purposes.
There has been some debate about how the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act apply in the years that have fallen since. The clarification has been made because the Home Office wanted to ensure that it defines that accurately, protects citizens’ rights and permits Government agencies, law enforcement agencies and other agencies to collect and review the data necessary to protect us all. We are tabling this amendment now at the first opportunity we have had, to ensure that that phrasing still permits HMRC to collect the vital data that we need to ensure that our taxes are collected properly. To sum up my point on new clause 5, the civil information powers allow HMRC to continue to collect vital revenue to fund our public services.
In conclusion, the Government’s proposed amendments will ensure that the legislation works as it should and that HMRC has the powers it needs to continue collecting tax revenue that is vital to fund our public services that so many in our country rely on. I will, of course, address all amendments tabled by other Members when I wind up later. I very much want to listen closely to the debate that will now follow. In the meantime, I commend amendments 9 to 19 and new clauses 4 and 5 to the House. I urge hon. Members to accept them in due course.

James Murray: It is important, briefly, to first recognise the context in which we consider amendments and new clauses to the Bill. Yesterday we heard the news that the average rate for a two-year fixed-rate mortgage has now breached 6% for the first time since December. That news will leave the 400,000 people across the country whose existing fixed deals end between July and September feeling anxious and fearful. They face the prospect of having hundreds of pounds less in their pockets each month when their current deal expires and they have to re-mortgage. That is not to mention all those on variable rates, who have already seen their payments rise relentlessly as a result of interest rates going up again and again.
Across the country, mortgage payers are facing interest rate rises to above 6% for the second time in 12 months. The first time came in the wake of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-budget last autumn; now it is because inflation means that banks expect interest rates to stay higher for far longer than anyone feared. The truth is that mortgage payers are feeling pain because the Tories crashed the economy and have no plan to fix it. What is more, we know the current increases in mortgage payments come after 13 years of low growth and stagnant wages. They also come after 25 tax rises by the Government in this Parliament alone, increases that have pushed the tax burden in this country to its highest level in 70 years.
I will begin considering the detail of our amendments on Report by focusing on something very rare indeed: a tax cut from this Government. That tax cut is included in clause 18. Through that section of the Bill, the Government will be spending £1 billion of public money a year to benefit the 1% of people with the biggest pension pots. Ministers may claim that their decision  was driven by a desire to get doctors back into work, but since the policy was first announced the Government have flatly rejected any call to consider a fairer and less costly fix targeted at doctors’ pensions.
It is not just Labour who have been questioning the Government’s approach; the Conservative Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), said that even she was surprised that Ministers had opted for a blanket cut rather than a bespoke policy for doctors. That is why we will be voting today for our amendment 1, which deletes clause 18, thereby abandoning plans for this blanket change that fails to spend public money wisely. As our new clause 1 makes clear, the Chancellor should finally do what so many have been calling on him to do and produce an alternative approach to pensions that is targeted at NHS doctors and provides taxpayers with value for money.

Harriett Baldwin: I put on the record that while the hon. Gentleman quotes me correctly, I underline that I was pleasantly surprised.

James Murray: I thank the hon. Lady, I think, for that intervention. I am trying to work out exactly what point was being made there, but I think the overall point is clear. There is concern from all sides at £1 billion a year of public money being spent on a blanket change, rather than something targeted at NHS doctors.
That failure to spend public money wisely is evident again in the Bill’s proposal to reduce air passenger duty for domestic flights, the impact of which our new clause 10 seeks to uncover. Again, at a time when public finances are under severe pressure, household budgets are being stretched in all directions and the cost of inaction on climate change grows by the day, it is baffling that a tax cut for frequent flyers is the Government’s priority for spending public money.

Kit Malthouse: I just want to take the hon. Gentleman back, if I may, to the point he made on pensions. Can he not see the difficulty of having a specific regime for NHS doctors? For example, if he were to bring in a specific regime, would it apply to doctors who also work in the private sector? What would happen if an NHS doctor changed career and became an accountant? There are other areas where we have difficulty securing the services of public servants beyond a certain point, for example judges, prison governors or senior police officers. Is he proposing that each of those areas should have their own specific scheme and that therefore we should build a sort of rats’ nest of complexity around pensions?

James Murray: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I feel he is misguided in claiming that it is somehow only Labour calling for a doctors-only pension scheme to be investigated. I referred to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, but I could also refer to the current Chancellor—the current Chancellor—who less than a year ago suggested that we should go for a doctors-only scheme. All we are asking is for the current Chancellor to do what he told himself to do less than a year ago and investigate the possibilities. That is important, because that is how we spend public money wisely.
To return to air passenger duty, Ministers may try to point out, when we discuss it later in the debate, that the lower rate of domestic air passenger duty has been accompanied by the introduction of an ultra long-haul rate. But when taken together, the air passenger duty changes in the Bill are set to cost the taxpayer an additional £35 million a year. That cannot be the right priority for spending public money. In Committee, we tried to get to the bottom of why this tax cut is being prioritised.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. How does the shadow Minister square his comments with those made by the Welsh Government calling for air passenger duty to be devolved and abolished to support Cardiff Airport, which they have purchased?

James Murray: I will leave matters for the Welsh Government to the Welsh Government to set out their position. We are trying to challenge the position of the UK Government on air passenger duty.
Whatever the UK Government say, the reasoning behind air passenger duty changes have been hard to come by. In Committee, we wanted to understand why the cost of domestic flights is so high up the agenda of this Government under this Prime Minister. I asked the Minister whether, if someone were to travel by helicopter around the UK, for instance from London and Southampton, that would be subject to air passenger duty. I could equally have asked if that would be the case if someone were to get a helicopter ride from London to Dover. At the time, the Minister clarified that there is no air passenger duty other than on fixed-wing aircraft, so that anyone wanting to make short hops in a helicopter can rest assured that this tax would not apply.
I also asked the Minister whether, if someone travelled on a private jet around the UK from, say, London to Blackpool, what rate of air passenger duty would apply in that case. The Minister confirmed that private jets will not benefit from the domestic air passenger duty cut—something the Chancellor may want to let his neighbour on Downing Street know. Finally, I asked the Minister what rate of air passenger duty would apply if someone lived in the UK but was travelling to another home of theirs, let us say in Santa Monica, California. The Minister did not say at the time whether such a flight would attract the ultra long-haul rate, but my understanding is that it would not, so anyone on the Government Benches who needs to fly to their Los Angeles home will not be hit.
It is clear from the Tories’ approach that they have no idea how to spend public money wisely, and that their judgment over what to prioritise is at odds with the British people. Under the Conservatives in this Parliament alone, people across Britain have faced 25 tax rises and 12 interest rate rises. Yet the Tories think the priorities for taxpayers’ money in the middle of a cost of living crisis should be tax cuts for frequent flyers and for those with the very largest pension pots. The truth is that under the Conservatives, working people always end up paying the bill.

Richard Drax: On the Government Benches, we get tired of hearing from the Opposition Benches about taking taxpayers’ money. This is money  the poor taxpayer is having to pay in the first place and should not be taxed on. So far as pensions are concerned, surely the aim for all of us is to have, if we can afford to, sufficient money to live free of the state and off the state at the end of our years, thereby allowing taxpayers’ money to be effectively used for those who really do need it.

James Murray: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. At one point I thought he was touching on a point that we might agree on, which is that spending public money is about priorities. It is about making choices on how to spend public money wisely. That is important at any stage for any Government, but in the middle of a cost of living crisis, when household budgets are being stretched and people are facing mortgage payments going up relentlessly, it is more important than ever that we prioritise the spending of public money and spend taxpayers’ money wisely. That is really at the heart of the argument I am making. We need a fairer tax system in this country, but time and again the Conservative Government have ignored chances that were in front of them to do something about it. Our new clause 9 relates to the Government’s approach to non-dom tax status—the £3.2 billion a year loophole that the Prime Minister called “that non-dom thing”.
As we discussed in Committee, clause 36 will affect non-doms who claim the remittance basis, as it will stop them using a non-UK holding company to avoid tax on chargeable gains made on a UK business. The Minister may remember that when we debated non-dom tax status on 31 January, she was keen to claim that the measure we are now considering would “close a loophole” in the non-dom legislation. However, she was not so keen to explain that, as the Government’s own policy paper admits, the measure will raise—on average, over the next five years—just one twentieth of the £3.2 billion lost through non-dom tax status every year.
Labour believes that if people make Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here. That patriotic point should be accepted in all parts of both sides of the political divide, but Ministers in this Government, under this Prime Minister, seem desperate to defend the non-dom loophole. We will keep pressing the Government to think again and to follow our plan to abolish non-dom status, replace it with a modern system, and use the money raised to strengthen the NHS, childcare and the economy.

Craig Mackinlay: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that non-doms who could pay zero inheritance tax in other places around the world and need not spend money any at all in the UK will just stay here and be taxed under his plans? Or will they up sticks and go elsewhere—which they are very capable of doing—in which case we would lose the VAT and everything else that comes with non-dom spending in the UK?

James Murray: I would welcome a more extended debate about non-dom tax status. That might be slightly outside the remit of today’s debate, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to some very good research conducted by the London School of Economics and Warwick University on the impact of people potentially leaving the UK as a result of any changes in non-dom status. Getting rid of  non-dom status would still net £3.2 billion a year according to the work done by the LSE and Warwick, which is based on HMRC data which they have looked at and which constitutes reputable evidence showing what would happen in that event. As I have said, we would replace non-dom status with a modern system like the one that operates in many other countries around the world.
Let me link the hon. Gentleman’s point to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). This is about priorities. What is the priority for expenditure of £3.2 billion a year? Is it protecting non-dom tax status, or is it strengthening the NHS and childcare? That is at the heart of the question we are asking today.
As well as closing the non-dom loophole—about which I could speak at length— we will keep pressing the Government to close gaps in their approach to the windfall tax on oil and gas giants. Our new clause 8 presses them to think again about their investment allowance loopholes. We believe it is wrong for Ministers to leave billions of pounds of windfall profits for oil and gas giants on the table when some of that money should be helping to support families through the cost of living crisis.
We know, of course, that making our tax system fairer is not just a question of having the right legislation in place domestically; it is also a question of working with other countries to end the race to the bottom among large multinationals around the world. As our new clause 7 makes clear, we want the Government to remain committed to implementing the global agreement on a minimum rate of corporate tax. This landmark deal from the OECD is an important step towards ending the international race to the bottom on tax, as it calls time on large multinationals which operate in the UK but use low-tax jurisdictions overseas to avoid paying their fair share of tax. When large multinationals do that, it flies in the face of the British sense of fairness, it deprives public services in our country of much-needed funding, and it undercuts and undermines British businesses that play by the rules.
As we have made clear throughout consideration of the Bill, we are glad to see this legislation being implemented. We want to see the global agreement in place so that large multinationals pay a minimum level of 15% tax in each jurisdiction in which they operate. We have raised the need for such an international deal many times with the Government. Indeed, I first pressed Treasury Ministers on the subject more than two years ago, on 13 April 2021, during Second Reading of an earlier Finance Bill. At the time, we suspected that the Government might be dragging their feet because they wanted to keep alive the possibility of a race to the bottom in the future, but now, with Ministers having finally agreed to implement the deal—albeit in a version that they allowed to be weakened from what was originally proposed—opposition to it has galvanised those on the Tory Back Benches.
Two days ago, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) published an opinion piece in The Sunday Telegraph. The headline described the common-sense approach taken with the global minimum corporate tax rate—the approach that her colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench want to implement—as a
“radical plan for permanent worldwide socialism”.
The right hon. Member has tabled an amendment to this part of the Bill, which she said in her piece on Sunday was
designed to be helpful and easy to adopt.”
I would be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees, and how helpful she thinks the amendment is, because we believe that it is designed to undermine fatally the implementation of the landmark deal on a global minimum corporate tax rate. Efforts to scupper the implementation of the deal constitute an astonishing act of self-sabotage on our public finances. The reality is that if the UK walks away now from implementing these rules, businesses will simply be taxed by other countries which have implemented the deal. Let me reassure the Minister that if the amendment is pushed to a vote by Conservative Back Benchers, we will oppose it, so Ministers need not worry about whether they will be able to vote it down even if they lose their majority through a Back-Bench rebellion.
What on earth does this situation say about the state of the Conservatives and about the weakness of the Prime Minister? The amendment, which brazenly undermines the Government’s position, has been signed by right hon. and hon. Members who, within the last 12 months, have held the offices of Prime Minister, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and a raft of other ministerial positions. What would happen to the implementation of these rules if the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) became the third Conservative Prime Minister to be forced from office in 12 months, and an MP who supports this amendment took over his role? The truth is the Conservatives have now become totally incapable of offering any certainty or stability, but that certainty and stability is what businesses and investors so desperately want so that they can play their part in growing our economy and raising living standards for people across Britain.

Jonathan Edwards: Has the shadow Minister seen today’s report from the Institute for Public Policy Research? It states that the UK is in the middle of an economic growth “doom loop” as a result of decades of under-investment by Government and businesses. Recent statistics indicate that the UK has the lowest business investment in the G7, ranking 27th among the 30 OECD countries. Does that not suggest that businesses have no confidence in the Government’s strategy, and that alarm bells should be ringing in the Treasury?

James Murray: The hon. Gentleman is right to describe the state of the economy as a doom loop. It is on a managed path of decline, which even the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) described as a “vicious cycle of stagnation”. The fact is that without any stability or certainty and without a plan for growth, we cannot get the economy out of that doom loop, which is exactly what we are pressing the Government to do.
I know that Conservative Members may be feeling rebellious today, so perhaps they will consider supporting our new clause 6, which requires the Chancellor to follow Labour’s lead and set out a plan for business taxes that increases certainty and investment. The truth  is, however, that even if the Conservatives did set out a plan, no one would believe that they would or could stick to it. Everyone knows that this Prime Minister is weak, hostage to his party, and unable to lead. Only a new Labour Government can bring the stability and certainty that businesses need.
That is what we need in order to boost investment, create jobs and grow Britain’s economy. That is what we need to get us off this path of managed decline, to provide security for family finances once again, and to make people across Britain better off.

Harriett Baldwin: I rise to speak to new clause 2 and amendment 7, which were tabled in my name and those of all the other members of the cross-party Treasury Committee.
“Taxes are far too complex.”
Those are not my words but the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he gave evidence to our Committee. The amendments to which I am speaking would give legislative effect to the recommendations of the report we published last week on the work of the Office of Tax Simplification. The report is on the Table, and I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to read it.
Across the House, I think we can all agree that, regardless of the level of tax, the tax system itself has become far too complex. To give an example, as a result of the Committee’s current inquiry on tax reliefs, we have finally found out how many tax reliefs there are in the tax code—1,180. The unnecessary complexity in our tax code makes the tax system expensive and difficult for HMRC to administer, makes the tax system confusing and makes it difficult for taxpayers to understand the choices on offer and the consequences of those choices for their after-tax income.
A complex tax system can be hugely costly for taxpayers and for those responsible for compliance with the tax code. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was kind enough to give evidence to our Committee on the VAT system last week, and she described it as the “most complex” part of the tax system. VAT creates a crippling compliance burden for small businesses and, as a result, there is a massive pile-up of companies just underneath that £85,000 turnover threshold. This shows that small, potentially dynamic, growing businesses—the engines of our economy—would rather stay under the threshold than deal with the VAT system.
Unfortunately, the VAT threshold is far from the only cliff edge in our tax and benefits systems. At worst, these cliff edges result in people being worse off for earning more money. In recent evidence to a joint session of the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, we heard how people can suddenly find themselves much worse off, after losing entitlements such as free school meals and council tax support, when they earn only a little more money. Indeed, next winter a person who earns an extra £1 will take home £900 less because they lose the cost of living support entitlement, which we reflected in a recent report. People would actually be better off by working less, or perhaps not working at all, and surely that is something we do not want to see in our tax and benefits systems.

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, but does she accept that complexity can lead to gaming of the system? It often feels as if the accountancy  profession and tax planners are streets ahead of the Revenue, to the extent that we now have to have a general anti-avoidance measure so that, if they find something we do not like, they are not allowed to do it, even though it may be within the rules. That is a direct product of this complexity, which is creating a whole other industry around finding loopholes.

Harriett Baldwin: I agree with my right hon. Friend’s excellent point. Not only do the wealthiest get the best tax advice, but general financial advice has now become so expensive in this country that only 8% of our constituents can afford to pay for it.
I turn to the example of a young father of, say, three children who is doing well at work and who gets a promotion taking his income above £50,000 for the first time. We might think this would be unadulterated good news but, actually, the tax system will send him a message that this is perhaps not such a wise thing, because he will immediately go into the upper tax threshold and his marginal rate of tax will be 40%. He will get the extra 2 percentage point national insurance surcharge as well. If he has a student loan, 9% might be taken off the outstanding balance. And of course child benefit will start to taper. For a father of three children, that could mean a marginal withdrawal rate of a further 29%. Our potential go-getter would be left with only 20% of the pay rise he had been awarded, and this applies to the kind of people we want to encourage to take on pay rises and extra work because it is good for the economy.

Bob Stewart: I am ignorant about tax affairs, but trying to sort it out might make it even more complicated.

Harriett Baldwin: My right hon. Friend highlights that this is not an easy task. The point I am trying to make with my amendments, which I hope he will support, is that, by abolishing the Office of Tax Simplification, we lose not only a source of valuable advice on how to simplify the tax system but the message that we want to do so, which I know the Chancellor wants to convey.
Higher up the income scale, the £100,000 income bracket triggers the withdrawal of the very welcome steps we have taken on tax-free childcare and the personal allowance. This means that a family with two children in full-time childcare, if they happen to live in London, would be better off earning £99,999 than earning more than £150,000 because they would have a more than 100% withdrawal of extra earnings in that income bracket, which is very distorting. It provides disincentives to work, and we see that obstacle to economic growth reflected in the workforce numbers produced by the Office for National Statistics.
The Chancellor agrees that
“the tax system is overcomplicated and the trend of ever more complication must be reversed.”
It is surprising that, on coming to office, he chose not to reverse the abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification. It was established in 2010, and it was given a ringing endorsement by the Treasury in its 2021 statutory review. Disbanding the independent champion for simpler tax sits very uncomfortably with the Government’s insistence that tax simplification is a priority.
However, the most important factor in securing tax simplification in practice would be for the Chancellor to take on the personal responsibility for simplification that he pledged to take, which brings me to the Treasury Committee’s new clause 2. We have heard that, while the Treasury and HMRC focus on new taxes, the Office of Tax Simplification did important practical work seeking to simplify the existing tax system. We also heard in our evidence session that the Office of Tax Simplification did good work listening to taxpayers to understand how the complexity of the tax system works against them. The reports of the Office of Tax Simplification were published very transparently, unlike the private advice given to Ministers, and they facilitated parliamentary scrutiny of tax simplification efforts.
The Chancellor told us that he intends to be a Chancellor who makes “progress on tax simplification.” I welcome the simplification of the lifetime allowance, which the Opposition opposed earlier, but the Committee wants the ability to hold him accountable for that. Under new clause 2, the Treasury would report to the Committee annually on the Chancellor’s promise to simplify taxes.

Victoria Atkins: I have genuinely enjoyed my hon. Friend’s contributions not just today but at earlier stages, and I enjoyed being grilled with the Committee’s very thoughtful questions last week. In the spirit of agreement and co-operation, would it meet with her and the Committee’s approval if I committed to write to the Committee once a tax year, including this tax year, on the subject of simplification? The Committee could look at that report, decide for itself how the Government of the day are doing and, of course, call Ministers to account before the Committee.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Financial Secretary for that intervention, which is very much in the spirit of what we are calling for in our new clause. Our report set out the sorts of things we would like to see. The report from the Treasury should be annual and it should include international comparisons, where available. It should also set out what the Treasury has done within that year to simplify taxes for our constituents and those who run businesses.

Andrea Leadsom: Let me add that we want to see real examples of simplification, as the tax code is so incredibly long and confusing. Just today, I was talking to people from some businesses that have found it impossible and extremely expensive to work their way through that tax code. As the Chairman of the Treasury Committee has set out, some concrete examples would be crucial in any report that came to the Committee.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, which made me think immediately of the measures in this Bill on the increased rate of corporation tax. That in itself is controversial, but we now have these ladders between 19% and 25%. Our Committee would be interested to see the letter that the Financial Secretary has undertaken to write to us annually include an assessment of not only new measures such as that on the behaviour of businesses—I highlighted the impact of the VAT measures just now—but of the existing body of tax law. As with the simplification of the  lifetime allowance, we must ensure that this Treasury and these Treasury Ministers focus relentlessly on how they can simplify the complexity and the behavioural signals that our tax system is sending, which are deterring people from entrepreneurialism, taking on extra work and earning higher incomes. With that, I am happy to have spoken to those two amendments.

Debbie Abrahams: I wish to speak to my new clause 3, which would compel the Chancellor to assess the impacts of the Bill on poverty and inequalities, and, subsequently, our health. It states:
“The Chancellor... must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty across the UK…
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socioeconomic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the 2010 Equality Act…
(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across the UK…
(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”
Most notably, it must consider those implications on the NHS. So the ask is simple: that the Government should disclose their evaluation of the impact of their economic policies on the health of our constituents—that is it. It is fairly straightforward, and I think we are all aligned on that; these are ambitions the Government have professed to have in their levelling-up agenda. My new clause would contribute to that and to the achievement of the reduction in health inequalities to which the Government say they aspire. They should have nothing to fear from the transparency that this new clause would bring.
As we know, there is overwhelming evidence that socioeconomic inequalities are the key determinants of our health and, consequently, our health service use; inequalities in income, wealth and power will determine how long we are going to live and to live in good health. It is, therefore, only reasonable that the Government report on how the Finance Act will have an impact on those inequalities. For example, life expectancy for men is four years lower in Oldham than it is in the Prime Minister’s constituency. In the past 13 years, Oldham Council has had £230 million in funding cut from its central Government funding—that is 29% of its total budget in 2010. It has received funds through the competitive bidding processes for the towns fund and levelling-up fund totalling £44 million. A GCSE in maths is not required to see the shortfall there. However, in Surrey, where the Chancellor is an MP, people have seen their council budget cut by just 8.3%. The issues are clear when we compare that 8.3% with that 29%.
How can it be right that in the sixth richest country in the world people are dying younger because of their socioeconomic position? Poverty and inequality are not inevitable; they are political choices that can have deadly consequences. The pandemic revealed that stark reality, exposing how our structural socioeconomic inequalities impacted on who was infected by covid and their experience of the disease. People on low incomes were more likely to be infected and to die of covid; within that, and at  every other level of the income hierarchy, people of colour and people with disabilities were disproportionately represented in case numbers and deaths. If we are to prevent the same mistakes from happening, the Government must listen. If they do not listen to me, they should listen to Professors Sir Michael Marmot, Clare Bambra and Kate Pickett, and to countless others. There is overwhelming evidence to show that structural inequalities in our country drove the unequal death toll from covid.
Michael Marmot revealed that instead of narrowing, health inequalities, including how long we are going to live and to live in good health, were getting worse; prior to covid, our life expectancy and healthy life expectancy was getting worse. Most significantly, his analysis showed that unlike the situation in the majority of other high-income countries, our life expectancy was flatlining. For the poorest 10% of the country, including in my part of the world, it was actually declining, with women being particularly affected. He showed that “place matters”; living in a deprived area in the north-east was worse health-wise than living in an equally deprived area in London.
Sir Michael also emphasised that it is predominantly the socioeconomic conditions that people are exposed to, not the NHS, that will drive their health status and how long they will live. Analysing the abundant evidence available, he attributed the shorter lives that people in poorer areas such as my north-west constituency are predominantly living to the disproportional Government cuts to local public services, support and income that they have experienced since 2010—and then the pandemic hit. As the National Audit Office and others have outlined, it was always a question of when, not if, there would be a pandemic. Like many of us, Sir Michael has pointed out that the Government’s hubris can be seen not only in their pandemic management but in the high and unequal covid death toll. Improving our health and wellbeing must be a priority of this Government and an outcome of our economic—and other—policies.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent, powerful speech. Does she agree that the inequality she has described also extends across a range of other fields, such as the quality of housing and of food?

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. When we look at the socioeconomic inequalities and the social determinants of health, we see that they include both the quality of housing and people’s opportunities for healthy living. That all has an impact, but we know that our socioeconomic determinants are the key drivers—the most important ones—of our health outcomes. There is indisputable evidence about that, which is unfortunately not reflected in some of the choices the Government are making.
I am glad that my party has recognised that, along with the importance of tackling socioeconomic determinants of health, in our health mission. We will take a health-in-all policies approach to tackle the socioeconomic inequalities driving health inequalities across our country. We will create a Marmot England and introduce new mission-delivery boards to ensure Government Departments work together to tackle health inequalities. My new clause is about ensuring that the Chancellor also recognises this and publishes a  review into the impacts on poverty, inequality and, ultimately, health. After covid, that is the least the Government can do.

Priti Patel: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendment 20, tabled in my name, which has the support of more than 25 right hon. and hon. Members.
It is not breaking news that I remain concerned about the introduction of a global minimum corporation tax. We have debated the issue in the House, in Committee— Ministers, the Chancellor and colleagues, including the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), the Opposition spokesperson, are aware of my views—but I think it is right that we have the right level of scrutiny of the policy because I have concerns about the implementation, which I have raised consistently.
Before I come to the range of concerns about the policy, I will touch on the remarks made by the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). She spoke about the need for business certainty, which is crucial, as did the hon. Member for Ealing North. I believe that the implementation of this tax policy creates challenges for businesses and for business certainty. As she highlighted, it also exacerbates the complexities that businesses face when it comes to administering these policies. There are also implications for capital allowances.

Richard Drax: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on amendment 20. The only certainty that the Opposition can offer to businesses is that taxes will be so high that businesses will fail—that is about the only thing the Opposition can do. So far as this measure is concerned, can she tell the House what the Americans think of the idea? Where are they in their thinking?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the amendment and for his comments. As we have discussed previously—I was going to touch on this—the United States is not in a position to introduce the policy. It is a fact—politics in the US is like politics here or anywhere in the world—that the Republican party has made it abundantly clear that it will not allow this policy to go through. It wants to go further and to bring in legislation that will put retaliatory measures in place against countries that impose the new tax and burdens on US businesses and multinationals.
Returning to the amendment, I will come on to some specifics with regard to the dialogue I have been having with the Minister and the Chancellor on this subject. It is right that we scrutinise the policy, which the amendment seeks to do. It is right for the Government to pursue international agreement to address the complex tax arrangements, which hon. Members have referred to, that exist with multinational corporations and businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions. That is vital and makes sense.

Richard Foord: On the point about multinational corporations, does the right hon. Member think that it is right that we treat multinational corporations that produce oil and gas in a different way from the way we treat renewable energy companies, including companies that produce renewable energy  and invest in renewable energy projects? At the moment, it seems that the energy profits levy treats those things in different ways. Will she be supporting Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill to encourage investment in renewable energy projects?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I would rather businesses had zero taxation policies. I should declare an interest: when I was a Treasury Minister many years ago, I undertook the fiscal review of oil and gas. Frankly, we need to do everything to stimulate investment in both oil and gas and renewables. I would like to see consistency in policies on that.
Specifically to my point about multinationals and how they are taxed in jurisdictions, I support the Government in the sense that it is right to look to close tax loopholes where we see companies operating in multiple jurisdictions, but the plans for a global minimum tax are wrong, as I have raised in the House before. They are wrong and flawed for a number of reasons.
No one would deny that the introduction of such a measure is complex—it is not straightforward. I paid attention to the comments made by the hon. Member for Ealing North. There is no point just saying that we need to crack on and implement this; we have to do it in the right way, which is why I put forward the amendment. It even gives the Government scope for more time to look at the complexities around its implementation and to look at what our competitors are doing. We should not rush headlong into this. These are complex changes that will be challenging to enforce; I will speak about that, too.
I believe the measure is anti-competitive. It undermines our fiscal sovereignty. Without labouring the point too much, we have left the EU. The Government have the ability to make their own tax laws and fiscal sovereignty is crucial to this, too. Why are we are now going to surrender tax powers to the will of the OECD?
Economic growth has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee. We do not want to undermine our ability to be a low-tax global beacon of free trade. The Government are pursuing policies such as freeports. We all welcome that when it comes to competition, but we do not want to encourage a culture of subsidies, which this policy will do.
I believe that Governments and Parliaments must have flexibility to set their own fiscal policies and tax rates, striking a balance across all sectors, including multinational companies and small and medium-sized enterprises. Speaking as an MP for Essex, which is known to be an entrepreneurial county, SMEs are the backbone of our economy. We have to strike a balance between being competitive and having low tax rates to attract investment, and generating revenue to support public services—I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing North about that. If we are not competitive, we will not have the tax revenues to support public services. However, a minimum corporate tax would prevent us from doing that.
There are problems with the OECD’s plan, which is why I want to have greater scrutiny on implementation. The enforcement and implementation mechanisms are unclear and countries could find ways around them,  which should concern us. They could find loopholes to circumvent the policy. The UK looks set to gold plate measures. We follow rules and standards when we sign up to them, which is the right thing to do when it comes to our Government policies. The same cannot be said for more than 130 countries that have taken an interest in the matter. For many, agreeing to the OECD framework appears to be more about rhetoric and the ability to take action on taxing multinationals, than making the changes necessary and following the committed approach that this Government plan to take. I have no doubt that the Minister will want to speak about that, because the Government are being diligent in their approach and more scrutiny is required.
Moreover, limiting fiscal freedoms opens the door for countries to entice investment from big businesses with big subsidies, which distorts the market. All hon. and right hon. Members will understand that in a subsidy race we simply cannot compete with the United States or even China. Some countries can pump millions of dollars into supporting investment from multinationals. That is not what we do in this country.
We are more competitive as a country in being able to deploy a full range of fiscal and tax-cutting powers, than we are in a race to the bottom with subsidies. There are serious concerns about how these plans will be enforced and, importantly, how disputes between countries will be resolved. I understand that negotiations with the OECD are taking longer than expected, which is not a surprise, and I think it will be some time before an agreement is reached, but by baking into primary legislation a requirement for us to implement without any further flexibility, we risk blindly signing up to a package where foreign officials could overrule decisions and interpretations in our own jurisdiction and in on our own Government.
The peer review panels, being set up to review implementation, could be made up of representatives from China or other hostile states—for example, Russia—all countries which are involved in the process and states that have concerning records on human rights, war crimes and other conflicts, which we debate in this House day in, day out. Frankly, they do not meet our standards and we should be cognisant of that. Our tax affairs could be judged by representatives from states that many in this House are concerned about.
There is then the issue of the date of implementation, which I have referred to in my amendment. The Government have been clear that they will implement the policy by the end of this year— as clause 264 states, from 31 December 2023. This measure, despite the concerns I am raising, can only have a chance of succeeding in the way the Government hope if it is implemented in a constituent manner by all states—or, if not that, by a critical mass—at the same time. This is where we have concerns. We are just not seeing this right now in other countries and among our competitors, because they are not as wedded to the date as we are. I understand why we have to put down the date to enshrine it in law.
The United States, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has mentioned, will not be able to take this through to implementation by 2024. The Republicans in the House of Representatives are opposing those plans. But as well as opposing and preventing the US—our largest trading power—from introducing them, they are threatening retaliatory measures  on countries that implement the policy, and in doing so will penalise US-based companies. So we could have a situation where this Government introduce a tax measure that adversely impacts on our trade and investment with the US. Of course, that could have an impact on trade negotiations and some of the work that other Departments are doing—such as Business and Trade, for example.
It would be interesting to know from the Minister whether this issue was discussed by the Prime Minister and the President in their recent bilateral talks. The US is crucial in this, but it is not just the US that will not implement the policy. The EU members are not going to implement the policy fully on day one. They have been given six years to implement tit. In Asia, major economies and competitors are setting dates behind the UK: Japan, Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong. Although that the Government have been clear about their intent, we need to know what they intend to do on implementation. I have put my own concerns about this tax on the record. I think the date is wrong.

Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend knows that I have signed her amendment. It is a good amendment because the compromise, as it stands, gives the Government more time to think carefully about what we are doing here. As she said, the Americans are almost certainly not going to implement this measure. That means that the single largest trading nation in the world will not play a part in this. What assurances has she secured from the Government? Will she press her amendment tonight? If she does so, I will support her. If she does not press it, I will understand that she has some assurances. Can she spell out what the assurances from the Government are?

Priti Patel: This is important. The purpose of scrutinising the Bill and discussing the amendment is about the implementation and how the Government will pursue that. We have big concerns. Other countries are not moving forward, so we will be the first. We need a sensible and practical course of action. My amendment is reasonable.
I have had discussions with the Chancellor in particular. He has given some very clear assurances that, in the light of the points that I have raised, not just today but previously, and the conversations that I and all colleagues who have signed the amendment have had, in respect of the implementation of the tax, the Government have committed to bring to this House regular updates on what the OECD is proposing with regards to policing pillar 2. That speaks to my point about how all the enforcement mechanisms will work and about whether countries will be circumventing the rules and the structures of pillar 2. Also, before the summer recess, they will bring forward some detailed assumptions and modelling. The Treasury has forecast and scored, as I understand it, the expected tax revenues from pillar 2. That is something that I have been pursuing and asking specific questions about. It is important that we understand not only what revenues are gained, but the costs that will be incurred, particularly by businesses.
I have received clear assurances that the Government will publish, ahead of the autumn statement, details on the compatibility—or even the lack of compatibility—and  interoperability of the US’s global minimum tax legislation and that proposed by the OECD. That, of course, has an impact of double taxation for companies.
The Government will come to the House at future fiscal events—the first one being in autumn this year—to present an assessment of the progress that countries are making around pillars 1 and 2 and around the policy itself. That ensures that the Government are providing very structured updates within the fiscal framework on the impact of this policy on our economy, as well as that of major economies not implementing the policy by 2024. There are substantive commitments from the Government. I commend the Chancellor, who has been incredibly constructive in discussions. I am grateful to him and to the Minister, because she and other colleagues have had to do much of the heavy lifting.
To be clear, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I have had this commitment from the Chancellor in writing. There has been an exchange of letters between us. It is very important to put it on the record that he has been very constructive on the specific requests that I have made.
To conclude, I would love there to be more flexibility on this policy. The Government have a big opportunity in the next six months of this calendar year, before the commencement date, to look at what other countries are doing, to look at what they have learned and to reflect on the macro-economic backdrop facing us right now—not just domestically for businesses, but internationally.
Let me turn now to the administration of capital allowances, which we have discussed in previous debates. Those allowances will still pose burdens to businesses. Conservative Members must ensure that it is not a Conservative Government who are putting burdens on businesses, but that they do everything possible to bring down the tax base and the tax burden, and to simplify taxes for businesses.

Rosie Winterton: I gently remind colleagues that if they want to intervene on a speaker, it is important that they are in the Chamber at the beginning of the speech, just in case the point that they wish to raise has already been made. It is also important to stay until the end. I call the SNP spokesperson.

Stewart Hosie: Before I turn to the new clauses and amendments before us, it is worth reminding ourselves briefly about the debate so far, not least that the Bill was derived from a Budget that had the stated intention of seeing the debt, borrowing and inflation all fall. As the Financial Secretary has said previously, debt servicing costs are down, and indeed they are—they are down from last November, but massively up from the previous year. She said that the fiscal targets are to be met. Again, indeed they are. The debt target in particular is forecast to be met in five years’ time measured against the fiscal charter, but it will be at 0.2% of GDP. That is £6 billion out of a GDP approaching £3 trillion. As I have said before, these are very fine margins.
Although it is true that having a weather eye on debt and deficit—the big macro-economic indicators—is important, so too is immediate help for families suffering from high inflation, high energy prices and spiralling  mortgage costs. Those things, however, are all sadly absent from the Bill. That is important because the OBR has told us that living standards will fall by 6% over this fiscal year. That will be the largest two-year fall since Office for National Statistics records began in the 1950s. It is important because inflation is still at 8.7%, and it is far worse for certain essentials such as sugar, at nearly 50%. Remember that inflation was forecast to fall to 2.9% by the end of this year. Since then, it has been revised up to 5% by the end of this year. That means that the forecasts and the pain keep rising.
We know that real pay is not keeping pace with inflation. Troublingly, the Government are keeping their head in the sand regarding the inflationary impact of Brexit, ignoring even the former Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, who could not have been clearer about the contribution Brexit has made to the soaring inflation we face.
I turn to the amendments and new clauses we are considering on Report. New clause 1 calls for a review of alternatives to the abolition of the lifetime allowance, and amendments 1 to 6 delete clauses associated with the abolition. On Second Reading, I suggested the need to probe this matter in Committee. The decision to remove the cap on lifetime pension allowances, which will cost around £3 billion, will benefit a tiny number of already pretty comfortably off or very well-off people. I also suggested that, if the measure was genuinely designed to lift certain categories of worker—doctors in particular—out of a pension and employment trap, the Government should, to be brutally honest, have come up with a much better and far narrower solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) also raised the matter in the Committee upstairs. She made the point that a significant number of questions have been raised in the House and elsewhere about the lifetime allowance and the problem it has caused, particularly for NHS doctors, but went on to quote Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation, who noted that 20% of those who will benefit from the change in the lifetime allowance work in the finance industry, meaning that nearly as many bankers as doctors will benefit. That surely cannot have been the intention. We are pleased to support new clause 1, because it seeks not simply a review, but a review that will make recommendations about how a more focused alternative could be delivered.
Amendment 7 seeks to remove entirely the abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification, and new clause 2 seeks reports based on metrics to measure the performance of tax simplification. We will support both if they are voted upon. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) provided some excellent context in Committee, arguing that
“the OTS achieved a significant amount during its 12 years of existence and, with greater ministerial support for its proposals, could have achieved much more.”—[Official Report, Finance (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2023; c. 136.]
He also quoted George Crozier of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, as many have done over many years, who said that there had been
“useful reforms to employee expenses and inheritance tax reporting,”
and that
“every Finance Act of the last decade has had measures in it which owe their genesis to the OTS, and which have made navigating the tax system easier for one group or another.”
My hon. Friend also made the rather important point that it was the independence of the Office of Tax Simplification that made it stand out from anything that can be provided in-house. We will back amendment 7 and new clause 2 if they are pressed to a Division.
If I may say a few words about Government new clause 4 and Government amendments 9 to 13, they appear to come under the category of tidying up and clarification. New clause 4 in particular ensures that both domestic and international top-up taxes commence at the same time, and the other amendments ensure that reliefs and charges operate as intended.
However, I am rather less sanguine about Government new clause 5. Ostensibly, it is required to deal with the situation where
“financial institutions are regarded as telecommunications or postal operators”.
For example, subsection (5) of Government new clause 5 suggests that paragraph 19(4) and (5) of schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008 be removed, but paragraph (19)(4) says:
“An information notice does not require a telecommunications operator or postal operator to provide or produce communications data.”
That is a protection against the requirement to produce data in certain circumstances. Paragraph 19(5) defines “communications data”, “postal operator” and “telecommunications operator” as per the Investigatory Powers Act 2016—the very legislation that inserted those protections into schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2008 in the first place. Government new clause 5 not only affects the financial institutions regarded as telecoms or postal operators but, it would appear on my reading, removes protections in the Act for all telecommunications and postal operators not to be required to provide certain information in certain circumstances.
The Financial Secretary said she would answer questions at the end in her summing-up, and my questions are rather simple. What problem is Government new clause 5 designed to address? Why has a potentially significant amendment such as this come so late in the day? Is it even remotely appropriate that a criminal justice measure, the Investigatory Powers Act, should be amended in a potentially significant way through a late-delivered new clause on Report of a Finance Bill?
New clauses 3 and 8 to 14 call for reviews or reports of one form or another on the public health and poverty effects of the Bill, the oil and gas profits levy allowance, the impact of those with non-dom status, the bands and rates of air passenger duty, the impact of tax changes on households, and the effect of the Bill on the affordability of food and on small businesses. We are happy to look on those positively, although I am not certain that new clause 12 should really be opening the door to reducing the electricity generator levy. The Lib Dems have disappeared, but I would have said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), had he been in this place, that if one opens the door to a tax cut to the Tories, they by and large take it.
We will also support new clause 7, which requires a statement of progress on the pillar 2 reforms, seeking
“to extend and strengthen the global minimum corporate tax framework”.
It is important that we have a global minimum corporate tax framework, and I am not convinced by the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) about offering the opportunity for implementation to be delayed.
Again, the Lib Dems are not in their place, but I am also not yet convinced by new clause 15 because, while there are issues with the Government’s research and development framework, which I have raised before—namely, the stated intention to limit attributable expenditure for data and cloud computing licences—the new clause seeks to make the regime more restrictive and introduces the extraordinarily subjective viability clause in subsection (2)(a).
It is, however, true that none or few of the amendments and new clauses tabled substantially alter the Bill. It is also sadly true that none of the Government changes offer any hope of substantial help for the cost of living crisis any time soon. I fear that the Bill, and the Budget it derived from, will go down in the missed opportunity category.

Alun Cairns: I will speak to part 2 of the Bill, clauses 46 to 60, to which Government amendments 15 and 16 refer. In general, they relate to duty rates and any exemptions that apply thereafter. The Government’s objectives have been to simplify the system, to have an emphasis on health and healthy consumption, and, of course, to support pubs. In general, these are significant changes that have a positive impact on the hospitality sector.
When the Exchequer Secretary’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), said at the Dispatch Box that the Bill delivers the Brexit pub guarantee, there was significant enthusiasm within the sector to recognise and interpret a long-term commitment. There are two elements that immediately stem from that. The first is that these are changes that can be delivered as a result of Brexit; there were difficulties, challenges and nonsensical structures in the sector that could not be amended while we were a member of the EU. That is a major positive impact. However, the significance of the Brexit pub guarantee is that it will be long-term and we look for it to be ever extended.
I pay tribute to the Exchequer Secretary, who has engaged with me on some of the points that I have already made, but also to his predecessor, to the Chancellor, and to the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor, for recognising the opportunities to amend duty rates. That can genuinely help the hospitality sector, particularly pubs.
The original draught duty relief, which was in the Budget two years ago, was set to be 5% and to come into force this year. This year’s Budget and the Bill increased that to 9.1%, which will make a real difference. It follows the theme, all being well, of a continuing differential between rates that apply to the off-licence trade and those that apply to pubs and the general hospitality sector. The Government have therefore taken important, positive steps, which are welcomed far and wide.
We are trying to encourage people to consume alcohol in pubs more often than at home—clearly, there is an overhang from the covid pandemic—and to recognise the challenges that publicans, pub companies and brewers have faced in recent years. In the year to April, 4,600 pubs  closed. That demonstrates the challenge that publicans and pub companies face. The Bill shows the importance that we as parliamentarians place on having the pub in the community, where people can consume alcohol in a safe space, and anyone who drinks to excess is monitored and encouraged to do otherwise by the publican, friends and other hostelry customers.
The pub sector is hugely innovative. Pubs employ people flexibly and offer great opportunities to young people. I know that they are keen to work with the Department for Education, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. A meeting is coming up between the pub sector and the Department for Work and Pensions to ascertain how the apprenticeship levy can be used to reach people who are currently far away from the employment market. Pubs can offer flexibility, which can help bring those people back into the labour market.
My specific comments will relate to alcohol that is served on the premises, but is consumed off the premises. The common phrase that the industry uses is “decanting.” That gives rise to a new complexity, to which clause 52 refers. I recognise that one of the motives for changing the duty rates was to simplify the structures. The historical structures were hugely complex, expensive to administer and expensive for HMRC to interpret and collect. However, I cannot understand why, in simplifying the procedure, we are introducing a different tax rate for people who are served on the premises and consume at home.
Let me explain the market, because the first stage is to understand the marketplace. We are talking about a tiny proportion of the market—comprising possibly 0.1% of alcohol that is served on the premises. The market encompasses ale enthusiasts who take one or two pints home at the end of the day. Perhaps some people do not want to stay in the pub late and are happy to consume those one or two pints at home. Those ale enthusiasts usually take them in specially designed decanters to maintain the freshness of the beer. Another environment would be a tap room in specialist consuming environments such as a brewery, where people go to taste the different ales on offer.
The Bill proposes to apply the higher duty to those who are served alcohol on the premises and consume it at home. There are significant challenges in collecting that duty and in monitoring which pint has been served in a takeaway canister and which has been consumed on the premises. Some canisters hold two pints. A consumer may well drink one pint on the premises and take the second pint home to drink when watching the football on Sky. I am not sure which rate will apply in such a case and how we would prove whether the pint had been drunk on or off the premises.
I know that my remarks sound a bit facetious, but I do not mean them to be. I want to give full credit to the Exchequer Secretary, who has engaged and explained the reason for the difference in duty. It is to stop large outlets such as supermarkets choosing to serve alcohol on the premises and thereby benefiting from the lower duty. I recognise that that is a risk. Smaller shops such as corner shops could also try to apply for a licence to serve alcohol on the premises. That would change the nature of consuming alcohol. We like pubs because people can drink on the premises in the safe and healthy environment that I described.
Collecting the extra duty will be complicated. It will be onerous for the publican to monitor which pints have been served for takeaway. As I said, some may be drunk on the premises and some drunk off the premises. I repeat that that will apply to only 0.1% of the beer that is served on the premises. Although I recognise the serious risks that the Exchequer Secretary highlighted to me, I cannot accept that it is beyond the wit of the Treasury and the industry to devise a solution. I ask the Exchequer Secretary to re-engage with the industry to ascertain whether there is a much easier solution so that we can table specific provisions in future Bills to overcome the challenges.
The draught duty relief provision has already had a technical error. It was originally targeted at containers that hold 40 litres or more, but those are rarely used in the industry. I understand that officials simply googled the size rather than engaging with the industry to come up with an ideal solution. Thankfully, the legislation has changed that to 20 litres, which is a workable size. The good news has continued through our placing a lower draught duty on alcohol served on the premises.
The Government have made a good move. They have responded to calls from the industry, be they from small brewers, large brewers, pub companies, freehouses or individual publicans. That is recognised far and wide as a major step forward. The relief has increased from 5% to 9.1%. It will make a real difference to saving pubs, keeping them open and fulfilling the Government’s agenda to encourage people to drink safely and to drink less alcohol in general. It will help keep the pub at the heart of the community.
I ask the Exchequer Secretary to look at the tiny element I have described because there is a risk of undermining the good work that has been done for just 0.1% of beer that is consumed by people who choose to have one pint at home after they leave the pub. I hope that he can come up with a clause that will meet the needs of the industry and avoid the real risks that he previously highlighted.

Nigel Mills: It is pleasure to speak to amendment 21, which stands in my name. I also want to speak to the amendments on the Office of Tax Simplification, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) tabled and I was happy to put my name to.
In my more naive and mischievous days, I occasionally tabled amendments to Finance Bills that called on the OTS to review elements of tax. The last time I tried that was on corporation tax in about 2014 and the amendment was accidentally passed in the Bill Committee. I say “accidentally” because neither side knew that we were voting for the amendment. We thought we were voting to withdraw it and we had to rewrite history quickly and pretend that the amendment had not been passed. I have not been able to serve on a Finance Bill Committee ever since, or indeed any Bill Committee, so perhaps I could recommend that as a tactic for Members who do not enjoy them as much as I used to.
If we were being slightly mischievous, we could say that 13 years of the OTS has not resulted in a tax system that is a great deal simpler than the one we have now, but that is probably more the Treasury’s fault than the OTS’s. The serious point is that we need to find a mechanism whereby we can simplify our tax regime. It  has got ever more complicated, and at some point we will see taxes start to fall over, because the complexity of different policy ideas over time that conflict with one another leaves us with a system that is incredibly hard to follow and to comply with and is putting undue costs on individuals and businesses.
We could, in a rolling programme, find a way of taking out some of this complexity by being a bit clearer in our policymaking about what we are trying to do. Are we trying to raise income? Are we trying to encourage or discourage certain behaviours? Are we trying to virtue-signal? Are we trying to win votes? Sadly, we do all those things at the same time, sometimes in conflicting ways, and end up with a rather strange system.
The amendments I want to speak to are about the global minimum corporate tax. I think I am the lone voice on the Back Benches who likes to speak in favour of this. I remember looking at this issue before I came here. The OECD has spent a very long time trying to find a solution to base erosion and profit shifting. A few years ago, it produced 15 or so ideas that were quite worthy but made absolutely no progress. The Government then introduced the diverted profits tax in the UK to try to tackle this issue on a domestic basis. It would be a terrible signal if the UK, having been one of the countries that signed up to this, now decided that we want to delay implementation and not go ahead with it.
To be fair, no other solution has been found to how we can stop certain large multinationals trying to hide revenue in low-tax jurisdictions that has no commercial basis for being there. We have tried changing transfer pricing rules, we have tried country-by-country solutions, and we have tried more reporting—we have tried all manner of things, but none of them has managed to fix the problem. That is why the two pillars in the most recent OECD deal, while far from perfect, are the best we are going to get. If we do not go ahead with those, we might see some even more radical, less consensual, less well thought-through ideas being brought in. We even see the UN starting to play in this space, and there is a real risk that what it produces may not be consistent with a coherent tax regime.
I am not the biggest fan of the OECD. I once described it as the “Organisation for Excessively Complex Drivel.” If we read the rules that we are putting through today, there is a real sign that it is excessively complex, and that was my motivation for tabling amendment 21. We probably could have found a better way of achieving the same thing, rather than UK-headquartered groups having to go through a very complicated series of calculations for every subsidiary they have in an overseas regime to try to work out whether they have paid the 15% minimum tax, when the headline rate in those countries is 25% or 30%, and it is extraordinarily unlikely that they will not have paid that 15% tax, and there may well have been timing differences that have to be worked through to try to prove that. That will be a huge compliance burden, and it will not add very much. It will not collect any tax, and it will just make these rules look a lot worse than they are.
The purpose of amendment 21 is to offer the Government the chance to extend the power that the transitional, lighter-touch regime we are allowed to use for the first three years of the rules that has been agreed by the OECD and use it for a bit longer, especially if not every  country in the world is following our early implementation of these things, to try to avoid us imposing a compliance burden in the UK that will not exist elsewhere. I accept that that is not currently in the OECD agreement.
As more and more countries try to put these rules into their own domestic law, I think we might see them realise how fiendishly complicated they are and start to look for simpler ways of implementing them, so that we can focus on working out where real tax abuse—avoidance and evasion—is taking place and go and collect the tax that is not being paid, rather than having a big compliance burden. There are plenty of precedents for how we can do that in our own tax rules. We had the worldwide debt cap, which we do not need any more, so we scrapped it, but that had a gateway test. Companies went through a simple test, and if it was clear that they were innocent, they did not have to go through the full detail of the rules. I am sure that we could find some way around that. Our old foreign-controlled company rules had a list of territories that were treated as good unless there was any avoidance going on, and we could use a model like that.
I want to touch on why it is important that the UK takes a lead on this. I think it is fair to say that our overseas territories and Crown dependencies have been among those that have behaved the naughtiest around the world in terms of certain tax behaviours that they have encouraged or permitted in their jurisdictions. We are not going to get global progress on this issue if the UK is not at the forefront. If we say we will wait for the pack, half the world will think, “Well, they’re the ones that have been responsible for a whole chunk of this. If they’re not going to do it, we’re certainly not going to do it.” It is important that we are seen to take a lead in tackling this. Getting this right is hugely popular. Our constituents do not want to see large multinational corporations hiding their profits in low-tax jurisdictions. This sort of relatively moderate measure that we are opting into as part of a global deal does not have any sovereignty concerns.
The US approach has been through various iterations. I was at a lecture by Pascal Saint-Amans a couple of weeks ago, who was the OECD director who brought through the deal. He tells the story that the negotiations were going nowhere until the US representatives at the negotiations when President Trump was in office said, “Actually, what we want is a minimum corporate tax.” The whole room was astonished that the Americans had moved from not really wanting it to suddenly coming up with an idea.
What we have here, in many ways, is a Trump-era US solution. We can see that, because the Americans introduced their own base erosion and anti-abuse tax in 2017, or BEAT—another great acronym—which started out at 5% but is now at 10% and will go to 12.5%, so they are almost at 15% already. They also have their global intangible low-taxed income regime, which is an even better acronym: GILTI. I urge the Minister to think of great acronyms for new tax rules, because I think a global anti-avoidance rule called GILTI sends the right message. That is, again, a US domestic attempt to tackle US corporations moving intangible income offshore. The minimum corporate tax of 15% that we want to introduce is trying to tackle exactly the same problem.
We should not forget that most of the multinational corporate tax avoidance we have seen has been by US multinationals using US rules that were badly written because the US did not really care what happened overseas and allowed companies to play around with its sub-part F entity classification rules, basically to avoid US tax and avoid everybody else’s while they are at it, as they could get away with it. I would not take too many lessons from the US on this issue. In fact, its domestic policy is to introduce something quite similar to try to tackle a problem that it has created and exacerbated around the world.
We can set an example to the US and encourage its politicians to see that such a thing has been done in the past and should not be allowed to continue. We want responsible corporates around the world that are trading multinationally to pay the right tax in the right jurisdiction. I accept that that is not easy, and it is a complicated thing to get right, but that is what we want to see. I think we will see increasingly that consumers do not want to buy services and goods from corporations that are engaging in that sort of outrageous behaviour. If they carry on like that, it will be damaging to the US economy, so I would urge it to get on board with these rules. I certainly urge the Government not to give any sign that we are backsliding. It is the right thing to do. It is by no means perfect. I am sure we can improve the detail of it, but the principle is there, and we should go ahead and implement the deal.

Victoria Atkins: I should have known by now that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) would put his points succinctly and with expertise. He has taken me a little by surprise in ending as he did, but I thank him greatly for his comments.
May I conclude this stage of the scrutiny of the Bill by first of all genuinely thanking all right hon. and hon. Friends and Members for their contributions on Report? It has genuinely been the sort of scrutiny that shows this House in its best light: although there has been a certain amount of party politicking in certain parts of the Chamber, a very detailed set of questions and concerns has been raised about some of the most complex parts of the Bill. When I responded to the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), in giving evidence last week, I said that VAT is the most complex part of tax law, which in itself is incredibly complex. I think I am about to prove that pillar 2 may be joining that very elevated rank.
If I may, I shall concentrate on some of the amendments that have been the focus of the House this afternoon; I hope colleagues will understand if I do not address some amendments that have not been spoken to, or will not be pushed to a Division. First and foremost, I will deal with tax simplification—in new clause 2 and amendment 7, which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire. Again, I very much thank our Treasury Select Committee colleagues for their interest, their expertise and their commitment on this issue, and their scrutiny of opportunities for tax simplification. I have read the report already, which I hope shows my commitment to simplification. I hope my hon. Friend will understand if I do not respond in detail to the report now; we will of course respond formally to it in due course.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I remain deeply committed to simplifying the tax system. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) intervened earlier on: he is a chartered accountant, so he knows with great expertise just how complicated some aspects of the tax system can be. I very much share the Chancellor’s ambition and determination to try to bring some simplicity to some of these reliefs and rules. We very much want to engage constructively with the Treasury Select Committee and, indeed, the whole House in our efforts to do so.
If I may, I will just touch on amendment 7. We have introduced through this Finance Bill our determination to put simplification at the heart of the tax system and our consideration of it, which is why we will not be able to renege on our commitment to abolish the Office of Tax Simplification. We are going to stay the course with that policy, but we genuinely see the Bill as an opportunity to enable us to put simplification at the heart of the Treasury.
With regard to new clause 2, the Chancellor has set a clear mandate to Treasury and HMRC officials to focus on both the simplicity of new tax policy design and simplifying the existing tax rules and administration at all times. At spring Budget, the Chancellor announced the first steps of that work, including a range of improvements to make it easier for businesses, especially small businesses, to interact with the tax system. That includes—this is by no means an exhaustive list—a systematic review to transform HMRC guidance and key forms for small businesses, and a consultation on expanding the cash basis, which is a simplified way for over 4 million sole traders to calculate and pay their income tax. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) said, these need to be practical simplification measures. I very much hope that the consultation on the cash basis will provide some of that practicality that she and others so wish for.
We are also taking further action to simplify the tax system through the Bill. A great example of that is the permanent £1 million limit to the annual investment allowance, which provides 100% first-year relief for qualifying main and special-rate investments in plant and machinery, simplifying the tax treatment of capital expenditure for 99% of businesses. The Bill will also simplify the process of granting share options under an enterprise management incentive scheme. We also announced at spring Budget our efforts to simplify the customs import and export processes. That includes opportunities to streamline customs declaration requirements and engage with traders on plans to rationalise and digitise HMRC’s authorisation processes, all of which is obviously essential with our bright new future out of the EU.
The Chancellor has also set out that he is asking officials to consider tax simplification ahead of every fiscal event. Of course, hon. Members will have ample opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s progress on simplification through the finance Bill process each year. We also continue to publish tax information and impact notes, which set out the expected impact of tax policy changes on individuals and businesses, and HMRC’s annual customer experience surveys, which measure taxpayers’ overall experience of interacting with HMRC.

Andrea Leadsom: Just to clarify, will the Minister include in her assessment a simplification of the cliff edges that the Chair of the Treasury Committee raised? We have taken quite a lot of evidence on that, and it really does create disincentives to invest, to work and so on.

Victoria Atkins: That is a very interesting point. I hope the Chair will not mind my saying so, but when I gave evidence last week, quite rightly I was challenged about how we measure success. This is incredibly complex, as my right hon. Friend will appreciate. For example, with the corporation tax rises, we have introduced the tapering because we have the policy intent of trying to help businesses that are small or perhaps finding their feet, and we do not want to be charging them 25% corporation tax if they have not reached the levels of profit set out in the Bill. The metrics we will use are very much being considered. I am not in a position to commit to those metrics at the moment, but I promise I will come back to her when we have a settled package that we think will address not only the concerns of the Committee but the wider concerns beyond simplification, such as fairness and encouraging growth.
HMRC also reports annually in its reports on its objective to make it easy to get tax right. As I have just set out, we are actively considering how to develop a suite of metrics to measure progress on that. Precisely because we recognise the concerns and the thoughtful considerations of the Treasury Committee and others across the House, I was very pleased at being able to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire to commit today to reporting annually—that is, in each tax year—to the Committee to provide an overarching summary of the Government’s progress on the simplification. To be very clear, I intend that to start this tax year, because I take this very seriously and I very much hope that Committee members and others in the House will share my intentions in so doing. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend and Committee members will not feel the need to press their amendments and new clauses.
I turn now to the subject of the global minimum tax legislation, which is again a complicated area. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your munificence, I will just spend a little bit of time on it, precisely because I understand the concerns that my hon. Friends have and, indeed, the level of scrutiny they have quite rightly given it as the Bill has made its journey through the House. First and foremost, if I may—I am very keen to get this on the record, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) will rightly expect such commitments on the record—before I make the commitments that the Chancellor has made in his letter, I will set out the background to pillar 2. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham clearly has a great deal of knowledge about this area, it is fair to say that not everybody in Parliament will have the same understanding.
By way of an explainer, pillar 2 will ensure that large multinational groups with revenues of more than £750 million pay a minimum effective tax rate of 15% in every jurisdiction they operate in. It is designed to protect against the risk of harmful tax planning by multinational groups and to promote fair and open competition on tax policy. It is really to prevent those large multinationals from shifting profit out of the UK to those parts of the world that charge far lower tax  rates than us. This will help to ensure that profits generated here in the UK are taxed in the UK, and it will strengthen the UK’s international competitiveness through placing a floor on the low tax rates that have been available in some countries.
A lot of questions have been asked about implementation, and I shall go into detail on them in a moment, but if we do not implement these rules, the tax will still be collected, but by another jurisdiction. That is because pillar 2 is designed as an interlocking set of rules ensuring that low-taxed profits will be taxed even if the UK or other countries do not move ahead. This is why we are determined to introduce or implement pillar 2 from 31 December this year, along with other EU member states and with Australia, Canada, Japan and Switzerland, so that we are moving in lockstep with our international peers.
Before I answer some of the questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham has rightly raised, let me put on record my sincere thanks to her, and to other colleagues and friends who signed her amendment—and to whom I have spoken over many months in the run-up to today—to scrutinise what this means for the United Kingdom and for businesses. I absolutely understand why they are asking the questions. As I said, this is Parliament at its best, and I am genuinely grateful to her for raising these questions. What is more, the Chancellor is grateful. My right hon. Friend wrote to the Chancellor, and I am pleased to inform the House that he replied to her in the following way, to ensure that we all understand and appreciate the levels of scrutiny that have taken place.
The Chancellor maintains that the Government are sadly not in a position to support the amendment, but we recognise the importance of these matters to hon. Friends and Members of the House. On that basis, the Chancellor and I are happy to provide an update on pillar 2 implementation as part of the forthcoming fiscal event in the autumn, and if necessary in the spring. That update will include the latest revenue forecast from the OBR—that is an important point—and a status update on international implementation, which is a point that hon. Members are focused on. It goes without saying—I hope my right hon. Friend and others know this—that the Chancellor and I stand ready and are happy to continue to discuss such issues with her and others, as we move towards implementation towards the end of the year.
Quite rightly, my right hon. Friend and others have posed questions, and I will try to answer some of them. I was asked about implementation, which I completely understand. The member states of the EU are committed to implementation, and the EU directive in place is legally binding. The directive allows small member states—defined as those with 12 or fewer parent entities, and, therefore, those that are much smaller than our economy—more time to introduce the rules. Those countries are very few, and are not in the same economic position as the United Kingdom. They will not get an advantage from delaying implementation, as the directive requires other EU member states to collect the tax instead.
I have also looked to countries such as Thailand, Singapore and Hong Kong. The UK has a large and mixed economy, where it is appropriate for us to take action to combat aggressive tax planning and support  measures that support competition. Australia, Japan and Canada, which are our peers by size and shape of economy, are also implementing that rule. Indeed, Japan’s 2023 tax reform Bill was enacted after passing Japanese procedures in March. It will be introducing the income inclusion rule from 1 April, four months after us next year.
On the States, I understand why the question is being posed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley set out some of the history behind where America has got to. In 2017, the US introduced a minimum tax on the foreign income of its multinationals, and it has recently introduced a minimum tax on the domestic income of large groups, including foreign headed multinationals. The US already has in place rules that operate on a similar basis to pillar 2, and it has been one of the strongest advocates for developing a global standard. It has maintained its commitment to align its rules with the agreed pillar 2 template, but until that happens, the OECD inclusive framework members, including the US, have agreed how the US rules and pillar 2 rules should interact, to ensure that US multinationals are subject to the same standard as groups in other countries. That is an important context.
If it is not implemented in the UK, what does that mean? Again, the question posed is a fair one. Generally, the international top-up tax is applied at the top of the business, and at the level of the ultimate parent entity. If that jurisdiction has not implemented the rule, the taxing right passes down the ownership chain of the business, until there is an entity in a jurisdiction that has implemented the rule. This is why without UK rules, this tax—chargeable in the UK, if it did apply—would be payable to another jurisdiction unless and until we implement the rules.
I very much understand the concerns raised about sovereignty. We retain the sovereignty to set our corporation tax rate. It is still the lowest in the G7, and we can use important tax levers to boost investment, including the UK’s world-leading R&D credit and full expensing regimes announced in the Budget. We have also ensured that UK tax reliefs such as the refundable R&D credit will not be treated as depressing the effective tax rates of claimants. We have been able to achieve that because we have been at the forefront of discussions and negotiations on these rules.
On the point about how these rules are agreed, implemented and who holds who to account, the model rules were agreed by consensus requiring the agreement of each country and jurisdiction. It is then up to each country and jurisdiction to implement the rules. There is not a higher body than jurisdictions here to do so. I very much understand the concern about innovation and growth. We will remain free to use the corporation tax system to support innovation, business investment and regional growth through R&D tax credits, enhanced capital allowances and tax reliefs in investment zones. We must continue to work together with our partners to avoid a subsidy race that could distort trade or impact sectors.
In answering those questions, I hope I have addressed some of the issues that Members have raised in relation to pillar 2. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, having brought the scrutiny which would be expected from her, will feel able not to press her amendment to a vote.
On the lifetime allowance and the Opposition’s new clause 1 and amendments 1 and 6, the Opposition just do not seem to get it. This measure has been brought forward to help the NHS retain those doctors and consultants whom we are so desperate to have in our NHS looking after our constituents and helping to cut the backlogs, as the Prime Minister has set out as one of his five priorities. That is why we have introduced this policy. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) seems to think—and we have had this conversation many times before—we could have dreamt up a proposal dealing just with doctors in the same amount of time it took us to bring in this policy—two weeks. The fact is that this measure started having an impact on our doctors, our consultants, our chief constables and others this tax year, as hon. and right hon. Friends have set out. We want to make that change precisely because we believe that our NHS and public services deserve it, and that is why we are bringing that lifetime allowance forward.
Moving to the non-doms point, this is again a conversation we have had repeatedly with those on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Ealing North asked about the £830 million and seemed to question it. I am sorry to break it to him, but that has been scorecarded by the Office for Budget Responsibility. It has certified it, costed it and said that it will bring in £830 million over the scorecard period.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) raised important questions regarding alcohol duty. He welcomes the changes in the round, but as the chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, it is understandable that he is asking whether the draught relief is designed to apply to off-trade pints as well as on-trade pints. I am afraid that it is not, because we want to support consumption of beer in pubs. It is one of many ways not only to support our local pubs, but also to secure opportunities arising out of our exit from the European Union. Only pints in pubs will be subject to this measure, not pints poured into takeaway containers. The industry body the Campaign for Real Ale has lobbied to ask that that could happen. We have looked at the idea carefully, as has the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), but we have serious concerns that it would overcomplicate the draught relief. I hope to reassure my right hon. Friend and CAMRA that takeaway services can continue so long as the beer comes from a full-duty barrel. I am reminded that takeaway off-trade beer accounts for 0.1% of beer sales, but, when the Bill passes its Third Reading today, I am sure that we will all be raising a pint in celebration.
We touched briefly on the electricity generator levy, which is payable only on the portion of revenues that exceeds the long-run average for electricity prices. We have done that carefully to try to ensure that we achieve the Government’s wanted net zero ends while looking after customers. New clause 12 perhaps misunderstands how the EGL operates, so we urge colleagues to reject it. In relation to the energy profits levy, it is important to note that the Government expect it to raise just under £26 billion between 2022 and 2028, helping to fund the vital cost of living support that we have discussed.
In relation to air passenger duty and new clause 10, we have made changes to take advantage again of our post-EU freedoms and to support the United Kingdom.  We want friends and family to be able to fly to see each other across the United Kingdom. I am not quite clear whether Labour understands that or is now against helping friends and family across the UK to reunite. I am sure that all will become about as clear as its £28 billion U-turn.
I turn to new clause 5. The right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) asked why are we making this change on Report. It became apparent that a welcome clarification by the Home Office on how information is obtained for criminal investigations means that some data that is genuinely needed by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to check a person’s tax position is deemed as communications data. The clarification aims to secure that into law. We are trying to do it as quickly as possible, which is why it is in the Finance Bill.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) raised the duty to report on public health and the poverty effects of the Bill. We already publish data on people in both relative and absolute low-income households each year through the “Households below average income” publication. The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 also requires us to publish statistics on the percentage of children in relative and absolute low income, combined low income and material deprivation and persistent low income. I very much hope that she will welcome the £3,300 on average of help that we are securing for families across the United Kingdom in these difficult times.
To conclude—[Interruption.] I thought that the House might be interested in some of the details; apologies for that. The Bill contains a number of important measures that will support the UK economy, people and businesses. I therefore urge the House to reject the proposed non-Government amendments for the reasons that I detailed, and agree to the Government’s amendments and new clauses. In closing, I thank everybody involved for their contributions to our discussions not just today but in the months that have led up to this.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5 - Communications data

‘(1) Section 12(2) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (restriction of powers to obtain communications data) does not apply to a power falling within subsection (2).
(2) A power falls within this subsection if it is conferred (whether before, on or after the passing of this Act) by or under—
(a) any Finance Act of any year (including this Act and any other numbered Finance Act);
(b) the Taxes Acts (within the meaning of TMA 1970);
(c) the customs and excise Acts (within the meaning of CEMA 1979);
(d) any enactment relating to value added tax;
(e) any enactment, not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d), that relates to tax.
(3) But subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the exercise of such a power by a public authority in the course of a criminal investigation by the authority.
(4) In section 12 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) is subject to section (Communications  data)(1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 (no restriction on tax related powers).”
(5) In Schedule 36 to FA 2008 (information and inspection powers), in paragraph 19, omit sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).
(6) In consequence of the repeal made by subsection (5), omit paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
(7) The modification and amendments made by subsections (1) to (6) are to be treated as having always had effect.
(8) Subsections (9) and (10) apply where—
(a) before the day on which this Act is passed, a public authority imposed a requirement on a person under a power falling within subsection (2), and
(b) as a result of section 12(2) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 the public authority did not, ignoring this section, have the power to impose it.
(9) The requirement is to be treated as having been imposed on the day on which this Act is passed (and accordingly the period in which it must be complied with is to be treated as starting on that day) unless—
(a) the requirement was withdrawn by the public authority before that day, or
(b) the person complied with the requirement before that day.
(10) Where, before the day on which this Act is passed, the public authority imposed a penalty on the person for contravening the requirement—
(a) the penalty is of no effect, and
(b) if already paid, the authority is liable to repay it.’—(Victoria Atkins.)
This new clause removes a restriction on the exercise of civil information powers (for example, Schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008 which HMRC use to obtain information from, and about, taxpayers) which otherwise might prevent their use in certain cases (for example, where online banks or other financial institutions are regarded as telecommunications or postal operators).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7 - Statement on efforts to support implementation of the Pillar 2 model rules

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on how actions taken by the UK Government since October 2021 in relation to the implementation of the Pillar 2 model rules relate to the provisions of Part 3 of this Act.
(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must provide updates to the statement at intervals after that statement has been made of—
(a) three months;
(b) six months; and
(c) nine months.
(3) The statement, and the updates to it, must include—
(a) details of efforts by the UK Government to encourage more countries to implement the Pillar 2 rules; and
(b) details of any discussions the UK Government has had with other countries about making the rules more effective.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause would require the Chancellor to report every three months for a year on the UK Government’s progress in working with other countries to extend and strengthen the global minimum corporate tax framework for large multinationals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 296.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7 - Temporary full expensing etc for expenditure on plant or machinery

Amendments made: 9, page 4, line 25, leave out from “that” to end of line 26 and insert
“has been the subject of that or any other first-year allowance or has been allocated to a pool for that or any other accounting period”
This amendment ensures that the rules for determining the amount of a balancing charge work as originally intended in all scenarios.
Amendment 10, page 5, line 8, leave out from “that” to end of line 9 and insert
“has been the subject of that or any other first-year allowance or has been allocated to a pool for that or any other accounting period”—(Victoria Atkins.)
This amendment ensures that the rules for determining the amount of a balancing charge work as originally intended in all scenarios.

Clause 12 - Energy (oil and gas) profits levy: de-carbonisation allowance

Amendments made: 11, page 8, line 37, leave out “a subsea” and insert “an”
This amendment ensures that the relief works as intended for onshore activities.
Amendment 12, page 8, line 41, leave out from “infrastructure”” to end of line 42 and insert
“means any upstream petroleum pipeline, oil processing facility or gas processing facility (as those expressions are defined by section 90 of the Energy Act 2011 but as if that section also applied (with the appropriate modifications) to Northern Ireland).”
This amendment ensures that the relief works as intended for onshore activities and Northern Ireland.
Amendment 13, page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
“(7) The amendments made by subsections (2) to (4) have effect in relation to expenditure incurred on or after 1 January 2023 and the amendments made by subsections (5) and (6) have effect in relation to expenditure incurred on or after 26 May 2022.”—(Victoria Atkins.)
This amendment ensures that the relief for operating expenditure works as intended for onshore activities and Northern Ireland from the time when the charge to energy (oil and gas) profits levy was imposed (26 May 2022).

Clause 18 - Lifetime allowance charge abolished

Amendment proposed: 1, Page 12, line 30, leave out Clause 18.—(James Murray.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House proceeded to a Division.

Eleanor Laing: I am aware that the card readers are not working in either Lobby. I can assure the House that steps are being taken to count this Division manually, in the old-fashioned way. We will have the result quite soon.

The House having divided: Ayes 192, Noes 294.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 23 - Modification of certain existing transitional protections

Amendment made: 14, page 15, line 2, leave out from “(S.I. 2006/572),” to end of line 12 and insert
“in article 25C (payment of stand-alone lump sums: tax consequences), for paragraph (3) substitute—
‘(3A) Section 636A of ITEPA 2003 (exemptions and liabilities for certain lump sums under registered pension schemes) is to be read as if, after subsection (1C), there were inserted—
‘(1D) In the case of a stand-alone lump sum paid under a registered pension scheme—
(a) no liability to income tax arises on so much of the sum as does not exceed the 5 April 2023 maximum, and
(b) section 579A applies in relation to the remainder (if any) of the sum as that section applies to any pension under a registered pension scheme.
(1E) In subsection (1D) and this subsection—
(a) ‘stand-alone lump sum’ has the meaning given by paragraph (3) of article 25 of the Taxation of Pension Schemes (Transitional Provisions) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/572);
(b) ‘the 5 April 2023 maximum’ means the maximum amount that, on 5 April 2023, could have been paid to the member under the registered pension scheme by way of a stand-alone lump sum.
(1F) For the purposes of determining the maximum amount mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1E), condition C in article 25A of the order mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection (condition that member has reached normal minimum pension age etc) is treated as met.’”—(Victoria Atkins.)
This amendment provides that any amount of a stand-alone lump sum in excess of the maximum amount that could have been paid to the relevant pension scheme member free of tax on 5 April 2023 is subject to income tax at the member’s marginal rate.

Clause 51 - Alcoholic products qualifying for draught relief

Amendment made: 15, page 41, line 1, after “produced” insert “in the United Kingdom”—(Victoria Atkins.)
This amendment ensures that overseas producers (who cannot be approved under clause 82) can access the relief.

Clause 58 - Exclusions

Amendment made: 16, page 45, line 5, after “produced” insert “in the United Kingdom”—(Victoria Atkins.)
This amendment ensures that overseas producers (who cannot be approved under clause 82) can access the relief.

Clause 292 - Non-chargeable amounts of joint venture to be attributed to participants

Amendment made: 17, page 213, line 22, at end insert—
“(8) Where the appropriate proportion of the non-chargeable amount is required to be added to the result of Step 4 in section 278(5) for a generating undertaking that is not ‘qualifying’ (see section 278(3)) in the qualifying period in which it is to be added, that undertaking is to be treated as qualifying for that period.”—(Victoria Atkins.)
This amendment corrects a technical error to secure that the appropriate proportion of the “non-chargeable amount” is charged in all cases.

Clause 314 - Deposit schemes

Amendments made: 18, page 236, line 10, leave out “VAT that would, apart from section 55C(3),” and insert
“the VAT in respect of the deposit amount that, on the applicable assumption, would”
This amendment introduces an assumption that is intended to clarify how, in the case of deposit amounts that are not repaid, the liability to account for VAT works.
Amendment 19, page 236, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The applicable assumption is that, in the case of those goods, section 55C(3) is ignored and the deposit amount and the price payable for the goods are regarded instead as indistinguishable parts of the consideration for the supply of the goods.”—(Victoria Atkins.)
This amendment makes it clear that, in calculating the VAT liability, unreturned deposit amounts and the price payable for the goods are treated in exactly the same way.
Third Reading

Victoria Atkins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered a Budget for growth. He was clear that this Government’s focus is not just growth from emerging out of a downturn, but long-term, fiscally sustainable, healthy growth.
The Finance (No. 2) Bill, which Members of this House have had the opportunity to scrutinise and debate over the last three months, delivers on these commitments. It takes forward measures to support enterprise and grow the economy by encouraging business investment and helping to increase employment. It legislates for  announcements made at previous fiscal events, which take advantage of our opportunities outside the EU, and it implements the tax measures needed to continue improving and simplifying our tax system to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
As the Bill has received such scrutiny, I do not propose to go into a detailed summary of the Bill. I just wish to thank the many people involved in bringing such a piece of legislation forward, because they work tirelessly behind the scenes and rarely receive the thanks they deserve.
First and foremost, I thank officials across the Treasury and HMRC for all their help, advice and expertise in creating the Bill and the proposals within it. In particular, I thank the Bill manager, Mikael Shirazi, who has navigated the Bill with great aplomb, often managing teams of tens of officials on my screens as I was having briefings. I am extremely grateful to him and all the Bill team for their very hard work.
I must also thank my private office—again, the unsung heroes of any ministerial office. They have worked extremely hard, particularly Holly, a member of my private office. I thank the Parliamentary Counsel; the Bill Committee Chairs on the Committee Corridor; the Doorkeepers; the Clerks; the Whips, of course; other Treasury Ministers who have helped in this; and, of course, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your consideration. I thank your fellow Deputy Speakers for their consideration, too.
Finally, I thank all hon. and right hon. Friends and Members across the House who have contributed to the scrutiny of this important Bill. I hope that, at the end of this, we can be very proud of the measures that have been taken forward as part of our Budget for growth.

James Murray: I take this opportunity to thank the many people who have supported me and my colleagues throughout the consideration of this Bill, not least all my colleagues on the shadow ministerial team, the Whips and the Opposition Back Benchers. I also thank the Clerks and parliamentary staff, and third parties, including the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which always provides invaluable support and evidence for us and all Members of the House.
Let me speak briefly to this Bill, which we have considered in detail over recent months. Our feeling as we approach the end of this is that it could have been a chance to make the tax system fairer. A fairer tax system is desperately needed after 13 years of low growth and stagnant wages, and after 25 tax rises by the Government in this Parliament alone—increases that have pushed the tax burden in this country to its highest level in 70 years. But instead, we see the Government prioritise £1 billion of public money a year to benefit the 1% of people with the biggest pension pots. They are prioritising a tax cut for frequent flyers. They are refusing to scrap the non-dom tax status. They are refusing to close windfall tax loopholes. And they are spending their time battling their own MPs over implementing common-sense plans to stop multinationals race to the bottom on tax.
Beyond any individual tax changes, what British businesses and families need now is a credible, ambitious plan from the Government to grow the economy and to   make everyone in every part of our country better off. The failure to do that is perhaps the greatest failure of this Bill and the approach of this Government.
The Conservatives have had 13 years and they have failed. As long as they stay in power, the vicious cycle of stagnation stays, too. It is time for a new Government who will get us off this path of managed decline and make sure that people and businesses in Britain succeed.

Stewart Hosie: Loth as I am to disagree with the Minister, there was little by way of substantial growth in the Budget and there is almost nothing by way of immediate cost of living support in this Bill. We can only hope—although it is hope over expectation—that the Bill at least delivers some of the growth and some of the investment that the Government’s rhetoric would suggest they expect to see. I hope that happens, even though I doubt it will, and that the forecasts we see at the next fiscal event will be rather better than the ones we have seen over the past three or four years.

Eleanor Laing: I am pausing in case there is a speech about to erupt, but there is not. Therefore, I will put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Service Pensions

That the draft Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 15 May, be approved.—(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.

Standing Orders  (Consideration of Estimates)

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of Estimates) shall apply for the remainder of this Session as if, for the word ‘Three’ in line 1, there were substituted the word ‘Five’.—(Penny Mordaunt.)

Petition - Planned closure of the Bank of Scotland’s  Pollokshields Branch

Alison Thewliss: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents on the planned closure of the Bank of Scotland’s Pollokshields branch. The Bank of Scotland in Pollokshields is due to close its doors, should the Bank of Scotland not reconsider, on 27 July 2023, to the upset of many in the community. I thank in particular Bill Lawns, the manager of the Nan McKay Community Hall, Tabassum Niamat of The Bowling Green Together and the wider Pollokshields community, whose wonderful spirit and kindness is shown on a daily basis.
The petition of residents of Glasgow Central,
Declares that the proposed closure of the Pollokshields Branch of Scotland in Glasgow will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy; notes that this closure would negatively affect the large elderly population in the area, alongside those from ethnic minority backgrounds who prefer to transact in cash and deal with people they know; further notes that Albert Drive has been hit by two serious fires in recent years, and the Bank was an anchor holding footfall to the rest of the street.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and the Bank of Scotland to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of this branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002839]

Transport Accessibility: Bolton West

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Robert Largan.)

Chris Green: It is a pleasure to get this Adjournment debate on public transport accessibility in the Bolton West constituency. Public transport is important to so many of my constituents who use it on a regular basis, whether for leisure reasons, to go to work or to go to the shops. However, it is immensely important for those people in the constituency who do not use it that we use the infrastructure overall to make sure that public transport can take a substantial load off the transport needs in and around the constituency.
This Government have a very good story in recent years in terms of investment. A few years ago, the Liverpool to Manchester electrification project was completed. It was part of the Government’s ambition to level up and get the northern powerhouse going. The electrification of our railways is key to that. Not only that route, but the Manchester to Preston route, which goes right through the constituency, was electrified. There were huge technological challenges with tunnelling and historical concerns about our industrial heritage, but the Department and the wider team ensured that the project was delivered. We could then get rid of the ancient trains and have new, modern coaches on our tracks, which has made a significant difference. They are quieter, cleaner and far more attractive. If we want to encourage people to use public transport, we should deliver an attractive service that they feel happy and comfortable using.
There was also significant investment—£85 million—in the Ordsall Chord. That is part of the wider investment we need in Greater Manchester to ensure that the railway system works better, given that the city of Manchester is such an important hub for the wider railway system in the north-west of England and a key part of north-south connectivity.
More work needs to be done in the city of Manchester on, for example, the digitalisation of the railways. Even as we are improving services in many ways, there is congestion, and there are challenges in getting around Manchester and into Manchester from Bolton West and further afield. Improving services in the city of Manchester will enable Bolton West and neighbouring areas to improve their services too.
The Ordsall Chord is a magnificent structure, which is visually impressive. A huge amount of talent is responsible for the engineering behind it. The structure was made by Severfield steel in Lostock at the heart of Bolton West. One reason why I am so enthusiastic about the Government’s actions on railways throughout the country—there is obviously a huge plan for HS2—is that much of that transport upgrade will require Severfield and other manufacturers to increase their output to deliver those magnificent projects. It is not just about the railways in Bolton West or the city of Manchester and beyond, but about manufacturing jobs in the steel industry, which rely on such investment.
I am looking forward to the delivery of the Daisy Hill accessibility project. The platform is currently not accessible to people in wheelchairs or with mobility challenges. When the project is started and rolled out later this year,  it will give those people the opportunity to use the railway station in Daisy Hill. It will also enable people to come to Westhoughton and that part of the constituency.
Significant challenges can be produced by success. One big concern is about car parking spaces in the constituency. The car parks at Lostock railway station, Blackrod, Horwich Parkway and Westhoughton are often full. That is partly because they are used by people who have a short drive to the railway station, from where they carry on their commute, perhaps up to Preston or down to the city of Manchester. However, the problem is not only down to local commuters.
Car parks are also full because of the commuters who travel from further away in Lancashire. People will drive into the Greater Manchester administrative area because there is a distinct drop-off in rail fares there. From talking to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), I know about the concerns that exist there. Railway passengers should get on at their local stations, but they have to drive into Greater Manchester to avoid parking fees and to pay lower fares. I therefore believe that this is a problem for not just Bolton West, but constituencies across the Greater Manchester area and constituencies and areas around Greater Manchester.
Resolving the parking problems would be useful for local residents, but if we want a more environmentally friendly public transport system, it must reflect the concerns and interests of car drivers, many of whom use public transport as a stage in their journey to and from work.
The electrification project is ongoing. The Liverpool to Manchester and Manchester to Preston electrification has been of benefit to my constituents. We also have an ongoing electrification project between Bolton and Wigan. In the short term, it causes some disruption. When communication about these projects is well delivered—and Members have a role to play in ensuring that we get the information from the Department or the railways and share it more broadly—it gives a positive view of what we are doing, and people can buy into and appreciate the wider project. I think constituents are looking forward to getting these improved services and improved rolling stock.
I remember going to school in Widnes from Liverpool on the Pacer trains. People complained about them at that point, and as a Member of Parliament I have heard people complaining about them in the constituency in recent years. It is a relief to see them gone, and that demonstrates the progress we are making.
I think more of my constituents use the bus to get to work than the railway, so in many ways, bus services are more important. As part of the devolution strategy, this project has been handed to the Mayor of Greater Manchester. I appreciate that it will take time for the Mayor to develop his plans and ideas and to work with Ministers and the bus companies. He is now rolling out his devolution plan for Greater Manchester in the boroughs of Bolton and Wigan. I may be the Member for Bolton West, but my constituency also covers part of the Borough of Wigan, so this is of great interest to me and my constituents.
I look forward to seeing how the Mayor will deliver his plan. For me, the mark of success will be if we have a more comprehensive service covering a better geography,  with more point-to-point travel, so that people can get to work early in the morning, late in the evening or on Saturdays and Sundays. It is not just about the main routes. Some routes in Greater Manchester have very good bus services, where one bus is chasing after the other. We need to ensure there is a comprehensive system of bus services wherever people are, whether it is in a poorer neighbourhood or a wealthier neighbourhood, so that they can get to their place of work, be it in the town centre, the city centre or on a trading estate.
This is my challenge to the Mayor of Greater Manchester: now that he has the power—and it is a power he has wanted for a long time—he has to make sure he can deliver that comprehensive bus plan for my constituents in Bolton West, so that not only Bolton but Wigan and all the parts of them are better connected. Buses ought to be part of the plan, so that when we look at investment in Greater Manchester it is not always about getting to the centre.
One of my concerns about devolution is that it seems to be focused on the city of Manchester; it is only about having a railway network and a bus network to the city of Manchester. It is immensely important that we develop the radial aspect as well. We want to be able to go from Bolton over to Bury or down to Trafford. We want that radial aspect and to be able to reach out from Bolton West over to Chorley, Wigan and other places. That is what good public transport ought to be delivering. It should not just be about bringing people to the centre of Greater Manchester; it ought to enable people to go wider.
I appreciate that the Mayor does not necessarily have responsibility for the railways broadly or the bus services. That is where I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister and the wider team to make sure that they work with him, the other Mayors across the north of England and the boroughs and councils, as well as the providers of these services, to make sure that the system does not have artificial barriers, such as the barrier I mentioned between my constituency and the Chorley constituency. People should not feel as though they have to get in their car and drive, which to a certain extent would defeat the point of having that comprehensive transport system or public transport system—one where people can get on the bus or the train and relax, look out the window, or perhaps do a little bit of work on the way to work. They should not feel the need to get in their car to start that public transport journey.
My understanding is that there is multi-modal smart ticketing between buses and trams at the moment, which will become increasingly important; although it is quite technologically challenging in many ways, I look forward to that opportunity when it also applies to the railway system. I realise that it is really rather complicated, but the trams do not reach the Wigan or Bolton boroughs, so when that system applies to us, that will be one of the things making public transport far more convenient.
I appreciate the ongoing work on walking and cycling routes, with Government investment from Westminster being given to the Mayor, so that people do not have to drive to the railway station. They will feel comfortable with walking routes, or more so with cycling routes, if they are delivered well and there are appropriate facilities at the railway stations, giving people that comfortable option of being able to cycle to the railway station, whether they have a fold-up bike that they can take on  the train or they leave their bicycle at the station. I think those options are immensely important. I appreciate that some parts of Greater Manchester are rather more hilly and perhaps rather more rainy than Oxford and Cambridge, but I do think that if people are given that option, there will be significantly more take-up over time.
I will just talk about three other projects that are not in the narrow sphere of public transport but are immensely important. About 15 years ago there was a move to get a congestion charging zone in Greater Manchester, and the suggestion at that time under the Government in 2008 was that a further expansion of the tram network was dependent on a congestion charging zone being imposed on Greater Manchester. It was very frustrating that that investment was contingent on a congestion charging zone. There was a referendum in Greater Manchester in 2008, and every single borough opposed a congestion charging zone—even the city of Manchester, which would have had the least negative impact.
That scheme has been revisited, admittedly in a distinct form as a clean air zone, but fundamentally much of the practice is very similar to what we had before. Initially, it does not apply to cars—it applies to buses, vans and lorries—but one of my concerns is that it will evolve over time. We want to be positive about public transport, but if this modern iteration of that congestion charging zone is imposed, people will feel—and do feel at the moment—that they are being told to stop using the vehicle they normally use because it is convenient, and have no choice but to use public transport. They are almost coerced into using public transport. I appreciate that the initial plans for the congestion charging zone in Greater Manchester do not cover cars, but I suspect that in the very near future they will, and many people see that project as coercive. I think it is the duty of the Mayor of Greater Manchester to make sure that in Greater Manchester public transport is a choice that people want to take, rather than a choice that they feel coerced into taking.
My final note on this topic is similar: I know the Mayor has raised a point about workplace charging zones, where people driving to work have a tax on them, or perhaps a tax on their business. Again, I can see why the Mayor would want to have that revenue-generating system, but the emphasis should be on improving the railway system—as this Government are doing—upgrading it, and making it cleaner and more efficient. We should be building that capacity, not just in the Bolton West constituency but across Greater Manchester and beyond, and improving the bus system. I appreciate that the Government have given immense powers, ability and support to the Mayor of Greater Manchester to deliver on that.
There is a lot of discussion about the tram system and how it is going to be expanded, but I am not tempted at the moment to say that it should come to my constituency from Greater Manchester, though many constituents would be. Perhaps its coming to Bolton North East would be more appropriate, because that links with Bury far more effectively than it perhaps would with Bolton West. We are actually blessed with railway stations right across the constituency. I have mentioned Horwich Parkway and Blackrod, and we have Westhoughton, Daisy Hill, Hag Fold, Atherton and Lostock, which link in with the wider network. I as  a local Member of Parliament and many other colleagues right across the country champion the cause of the local public transport network. It is my judgment: I enjoy using the buses and the trains, because I so often find driving so frustrating. It is far more relaxing and far more comfortable and, when I come into work and I do what I do, I am often in a better and more relaxed state of mind.
I ask the Minister to continue his good work with what he is doing in promoting the railways, to continue working with colleagues on the overall transport infrastructure and to make sure that the ongoing delivery between Bolton and Wigan is delivered on time.

Richard Holden: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) on securing this debate, and on speaking so passionately about the issues not just in his constituency, but across Greater Manchester and the wider region. He made the point at the very start of his comments that the transport infrastructure should not be a funnel towards Manchester city centre, but a fanning out, with a radial approach right across the region. As a Lancashire lad from not very far up the road in Blackburn, I am fully aware of many of the issues he has raised. I used to trundle through on those Pacer trains down the Ribble Valley line through Bolton and into Manchester, and we can see the transformation over the last few years with the investment from this Government. I have visited Bury recently, but I will be coming to Bolton soon, so I look forward to seeing some of the upgrades my hon. Friend has talked about, particularly around Daisy Hill station as I am the accessibility champion for the Department.
My hon. Friend talked about the radial movement of traffic around Greater Manchester, and I think it was particularly important what he said about the need to avoid any of the artificial barriers that council boundaries can sometimes create. I am really glad to see that he and other Conservative Members from across Greater Manchester are happy to work with the Mayor. Just yesterday, I had a meeting with the Mayor and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) about some of the projects the Mayor is pushing forward. I am just so glad to see Conservative Members leaning forward on that. I know that some Opposition Members, if any had been here today, would not perhaps have wanted to talk about the Mayor of Greater Manchester, given that we know the relationship between him and the Leader of the Opposition could perhaps be improved, if I can put it like that. However, it is Conservative MPs who are really leading the fight for their constituencies right across the region. Given the long-standing nature of the career of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West compared with that of some of his colleagues in Greater Manchester, I am sure he will be able to guide them and help them.
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the broader issues of economic opportunity, because that is what transport is really about. Yes, it is about getting from A to B, but it is also about why someone wants to get from A to B. It is about cultural connections, economic growth and delivering opportunity for people across the  country, and I think that was at the heart of what he was really saying. It is about the broader levelling-up approach that the Government have taken in that space, and we need to continue that and do more of it.
The Government recognise the importance of transport to Greater Manchester, its people and the economy, and we have demonstrated that in the commitments made through the “trailblazer” deeper devolution deal, and our significant funding commitments, such as the electrification projects that my hon. Friend talked about. Indeed, when I was a special adviser in the Department for Transport a few years ago, I remember visiting Bolton with the then Secretary of State and my hon. Friend, to see some of that fantastic work in progress. It goes to show that over the past 13 years there has been a huge amount of electrification, compared with what happened in the previous 13 years.

Chris Green: Many tens of miles have been delivered under this Government, with about seven or so miles during 13 years of the previous Government. We are delivering, and we have more ambitious plans to carry on rolling out electrification.

Richard Holden: My hon. Friend is right about the seismic shift in electrification. I cannot quote the exact number off the top of my head, but I will write to him with that. We are talking about a magnitude of 10, 20, or 30 times what happened under the last Labour Government. That shows a real commitment to transport in this country, and to faster, more reliable transport. Electric trains are also lighter, which reduces wear and tear on the network because they do not have to drag a full diesel engine. There are all sorts of benefits to electrification.
However, it is not just electrification. We have put more than £1 billion into Greater Manchester through the city region sustainable transport settlement over five years. Most areas of local government love the prospect of a five-year plan, but we have delivered it. We have delivered it because we need that long-term vision, and we want to back that long-term thinking for Greater Manchester, to ensure that it can properly level up. There are also local public transport and active travel networks. On top of that, we have invested £94.8 million to support the implementation of Greater Manchester’s bus service improvement plan, and another £35.7 million for the zero-emission bus network.
Just in the past fortnight, the Secretary of State and I signed off an additional £18 million in extraordinary funding for Greater Manchester, to help maintain local transport services until the end of 2024. Two weeks before that we announced a further £72.3 million infrastructure package for rail services in Greater Manchester and the north-west, with upgrades to Manchester Victoria, and a third platform being built at Salford Crescent. That will help to ease those bottlenecks into Manchester, and particularly on the Manchester to Bolton corridor that my hon. Friend will know well. Those works support future service improvements to a range of destinations across, and not just into, Greater Manchester and beyond, including the constituency of my hon. Friend. That forms part of much wider plans to transform rail services in the area and across the north of England, including the trans-Pennine route upgrade and electrification of the Wigan to Bolton route that my hon. Friend mentioned. All those schemes  build on in excess of £1 billion investment completed in 2019, which upgraded and electrified many railway lines across the north-west, and introduced that crucial new fleet of trains for Northern and the TransPennine Express for which we had waited so long.
Let me turn to the specifics of the electrification on the Wigan to Bolton line, which my hon. Friend mentioned. In September 2021, the Government invested £78 million to electrify the railway lines between Bolton and Wigan by the middle of this decade. That vital project will enable the Bolton to Manchester corridor, which is one of the busiest rail routes in the area, to host longer electric trains with a greater seating capacity—that is often a concern mentioned by our constituents up and down the country, particularly at peak hours. The work will electrify 13 miles of track and lengthen platforms for six-car capacity at Westhoughton, Hindley and Ince stations. Line closures have been happening since January, delivering the early works, including replacement of bridges. Indeed, as I speak the new Ladies Lane concrete bridge spans over Hindley station are being readied for installation this weekend. Project plans to ensure delivery at the earliest opportunity are in progress so that passenger benefits can be realised swiftly.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that in December 2022 the timetable successfully implemented a number of changes developed through the Manchester taskforce, to improve on the performance levels experienced in 2018 and 2019 when delays marred a significant number of journeys. The Bolton corridor saw an increase in train lengths to provide sufficient capacity to meet demand, a standardised timetable pattern and the re-routing of the Barrow-Windermere airport service via the Bolton corridor. The Manchester taskforce is currently looking at the next stage of service development to maximise the benefits of the Wigan-Bolton and Victoria-Stalybridge electrification schemes and the recently announced improvements around Manchester. That is more of those tentacles spreading out, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
My hon. Friend spoke extensively about buses in his speech. Given that I am the local transport and roads Minister, it is one of my favourite forms of transport. Not only do I look after it directly, but it also uses roads, which are the other part of my brief, so buses are particularly important to me. I echo his comments. The Government know how important local bus services are to ensuring communities can stay connected and people can access vital local services, particularly many of the elderly, who for a variety of reasons may no longer be able to use their own transport. That is why we have invested more than £3.5 billion in buses since March 2020 to keep services running in the face of plummeting levels of patronage during the pandemic and to drive long-term improvements to bus services up and down the country. That includes our recently announced package of long-term support of £300 million over the next two years to provide the long-term certainty that the sector requires to deliver sustainable bus networks that better reflect the needs of those who rely on these vital services every day.
Part of that funding was for the measures to ensure we have cheaper bus fares with the £2 cap on single fares from 1 January, which is currently available on more than 5,000 routes across England outside London, including ones from my hon. Friend’s constituency out to other parts of the country. Sometimes our Metro Mayors  take full credit for the bus service support locally, but it is only right that my hon. Friend takes some of the credit, because it is only his votes in this place that have allowed us to deliver that money for the Mayor of Greater Manchester. It is important that we recognise that.
The measure to cap fares is helping to encourage more people to use buses and is saving passengers money during what everyone in the House acknowledges are difficult economic times. That is why we recently announced that the scheme will be extended until 31 October this year, with a further £2.50 fare cap all the way through to 30 November 2024. The funding we have provided over the past three years is the largest Government investment in buses for a generation.
In the past three years alone, Greater Manchester has received around £135 million from this Government purely in pandemic-related support to keep the buses running. That is in addition to the £95 million to deliver Greater Manchester’s local bus service improvement plan and almost £36 million to support the roll-out of zero-emission buses in Greater Manchester. We have stepped up to support Greater Manchester’s local transport network as it implements the franchising of bus services and delivers the Bee Network. Giving local transport authorities greater control over the provision of bus services in their area, either through an enhanced partnership or through franchising, is a key part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. For areas that decide to take on franchising, that means they are taking on the farebox risk, so they need to ensure that their plans are right, and they will rightly be held accountable by the public for the decisions they take.
We are clear that franchised services must deliver a more comprehensive service for passengers, so I am pleased that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be some of the first to benefit from the newly franchised services in Bolton and Wigan when they commence this September.
My hon. Friend raised the workplace parking levy. On local charging, I am aware of the attempts in 2008 by the Greater Manchester authority to introduce a congestion charge as part of a bid to the then Government’s transport innovation fund. That was rejected by a local referendum, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and has not been resurrected since. Any consideration of a workplace parking levy would be for local authorities to promote and is a matter for local judgment and debate.
However, workplace parking levy schemes cannot be implemented without formal approval from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will consider in full the merits of any proposals and listen to hard-working local MPs from across the Greater Manchester area. I recognise that a workplace parking levy scheme may have wider impacts on local residents and businesses. We would expect the local authority to explain those impacts in full to the Secretary of State as part of any proposal, along with any mitigations proposed to the negative impacts where a local authority has concluded that there is no feasible alternative to such a levy.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the Mayor’s plan for a clean air zone. Greater Manchester local authorities provided revised air quality proposals on 1 July last year. We have written requesting further evidence from the Greater Manchester authorities to enable us to consider their plans further. The Government have already allocated nearly £170 million to Greater Manchester to  help reduce nitrogen dioxide levels. That is on top of the money we put into the zero-emission bus plan and into the city region sustainable transport settlement. Some of the comments that he made were particularly important. We should be providing that positive choice of a public transport alterative to people and not trying to coerce them into doing things. That is what is most important and that is what the Government have stood behind with more than £1 billion put in through a five-year package. I urge local government across the country, including in Greater Manchester, to think about the message that it is sending to people when it proposes some of these plans.
I turn to the important issue of accessibility to transport. There are more than 14 million disabled people in the UK—a fifth of the country—and that number is set to rise further as the population grows and people develop more issues in their old age. Today, disabled people make fewer journeys than non-disabled people and are significantly less likely to be employed. Transport can act as a powerful enabler, connecting people with places and unlocking access to education and employment, but it can do that only if it is designed and provided with disabled people in mind.
It is vital that the transport services we rely on can be used easily and confidently by everybody. That is at the core of the Government’s inclusive transport strategy, published in 2018, and it is just as relevant today as when it was first released. The strategy outlines a number of commitments, and the progress that we are making to address them will support disabled people across Bolton West to make the journeys that are important to them, as it will for millions of disabled people across the country. That will also provide broader benefits for the rest of the travelling public.
For example, in May—just last month—Parliament approved the Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023, which I took through Committee. They will require the provision of audible and visible information on board local bus and coach services in Britain, so bus users in Bolton should be able to travel with as much confidence as those in other parts of the country. That is a small but important part of levelling up for many people in the country.
We also continue to invest in the accessibility of our railway stations. I am pleased to say that, as my hon. Friend said in his speech, a new lift will be installed later this year at Daisy Hill to provide a step-free route between the station entrance, ticketing facilities and  platforms. In March, we launched the inclusive transport leaders scheme, inviting transport operators from across the country to share their knowledge of improving service accessibility and to celebrate their progress in supporting the creation of an inclusive transport system. Those are just three examples of how the Government are levelling up accessibility across our country, including in Bolton West.
In 2020, we launched the “It’s everyone’s journey” campaign, encouraging all passengers to travel with a little more awareness of each other’s needs, and in so doing seeking to increase disabled people’s confidence to travel. Last year, we supported the Bill introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) that aimed to eliminate discrimination against all disabled taxi and private hire vehicle users. Later this year, we will publish updated best practice guidance for local licensing authorities, including strengthened recommendations on providing an inclusive service.
On buses, local authorities entering into partnership arrangements with their local bus operators are required to actively reflect the needs of their disabled passengers in their plans, and new bus charters should ensure a shared understanding of the rights of all bus users to access services. So, across the piece, whether on private hire vehicles and taxis, on our buses or on our rail network, the Government are at the forefront of ensuring that accessible public transport options are available to everybody.
Greater Manchester now faces a significant opportunity as it prepares to franchise bus services later this year, to redefine what an accessible transport system means and to ensure that services, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, genuinely reflect the needs of local people and passengers. We rightly seek improvements in accessibility at a national level, but I am keenly aware that inaccessibility is deeply individual and a localised experience. It is about the buses, taxis and trains that disabled people take every day, and the extent to which they are respected as individuals and their needs anticipated.
I am clear that together as a Government, working with transport authorities and operators and the mayoral combined authorities, we must strive to listen to passengers, whatever their needs are. We must seek to improve transport provision so that it truly works for everyone, every day.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.